DE  KOVEN 
A  Theological  Defence. 


BX 
5960 
04  A4 


A 

i 

THEOLOGICAL  DEFENCE 


FOR  THE 


REV.  JAMES  DE  KOVEN,  D.D. 

WARDEN  OF  RACINE  COLLEGE, 


TO 


The    Council    held   at   Milwaukee, 


FEBRUARY  llth  and  12th,  1874. 


RACINE,  WIS.: 
ADVOCATE  STEAM  PRINTING  HOUSE  AND  BOOK  BINDERY 


.MISPRINTS. 

In  Preface  p.  2,  for  "civiley"  read  "civilly." 

P.  2 4,. for  "Gorgoria"  read  "Gorgonia." 

In  Appendix  p.  46,  for  "Alexader"  read  "Alexander." 

P.  48  for  "interrogaries"  read  "interrogatories." 

P.  50  for  "person"  read  "personal." 

P.  52  for  "p.  90"  read  "pp.  89  and  90." 

P.  57  for  "that"  read  "what." 

P.  62  for  prayer  of  Ignatius  Loyola  read: 

Anima  Christi  Sanctiiica  UK-- 
Corpus Christi  Salva  me 
Sanguis  Christi.  inebria  me 
Aqua  l.ateris  Christi  lava  me 
Passiu  Christi  conforta  me 
O  bone  Jesu  exaudi  me 
Intra   tua  vulnera  abscuniie  me,  &c. 

P.  63  for  "/w«"  read  "borne.'" 


PREFACE. 


The  substance  of  the  following  defence  was  spoken  to  the 
Council  held  in  Milwaukee,  February  nth  and  i2th.  I  have 
omitted  some  few  personal  allusions  that  I  might,  so  far  as  I 
could,  wound  the  feelings  of  no  one,  and  I  have  added  certain 
things,  which  either  haste,  or  excitement,  or  the  exigencies  of 
the  occasion  compelled  me  to  omit,  and  have  besides  endeavoured 
to  make  the  defence  as  full  and  complete  as  I  could,  without 
writing  a  theological  treatise. 

I  am  sure  I  may  be  pardoned  for  this,  when  I  state  that  since 
the  General  Convention  of  1871,  with  the  exception  of  a  corres- 
pondence between  myself  and  the  Rev.  Dr.  Craik  of  Kentucky, 
a  brief  correspondence  published  in  the  *Appendix  to  this  De- 
fence, and  a  note  correcting  a  mistake  in  a  matter  of  fact  of 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Andrews  of  Virginia ;  this  is  the  only  time  I  have 
ever  published  a  word  in  my  own  defence. 

My  reasons  for  making  my  defence  before  the  Council  and 
for  publishing  it  now  are  as  follows : 

a.  Immediately  after  the   General  Convention   of  1871  I 
was  attacked  in  newspapers  and  elsewhere  as  an  Idolater,  and  as 
one  disloyal  to  the  church. 

b.  At  the   Massachusetts  Convention  I   was  similarly   at- 
tacked. 

c.  Since  then  by  a  series  of  misleading  hints  and  dexter- 
ous misrepresentations  in  the  Church  Journal,  I  have  been  made 
to  appear  as  the  leader  of  a  party  in  the  church,  and  responsible  for 
doctrines  and  views  I  do  not  hold,   or  upon  which  my  judge- 
ment has  never  been  expressed. 

•See  Appendix  i. 


d.  Churchmen  of  Massachusetts,  some  of  them  men  vener- 
able in  years,  and  eminent  for  holiness  of  life  and    Christian  la- 
bours, who,  when  one  far  better  fitted  than  myself  for  the  office 
of  Bishop  could  not  be  nominated  by  them,  did  me  the  honour 
to  give  me  their  votes ;  have  been  also  represented  as  mere  par- 
tisans, the  more  to  injure  me. 

e.  The  attacks  in  the  Church  Journal  were  followed  up  by 
repeated  attacks  in  secular  papers  in  Chicago  and  in  Milwaukee. 

f.  Subjected  in  common  with  many  of  my  brethren,  clerical 
and  lay,  Dr.   Kemper  being  of  the   number,    to   an    interview 
with  a  reporter ;  and  the  last  one  waited  on  by  him;  I  thought 
the    best    way,    to    meet    what  has  come  to   be  regarded    as 
a   licensed    intrusion,  was    to    answer    as    civiley    and  simply 
as  I  could.     Stating, what  I  believe  my  defence  has  proved  to  be 
true,  that  the  contest  in  this  Diocese  was  not  one  of  grave  diff- 
erence of  principle ;  this  was  made  the  occasion  for  putting  forth 
a  document  in  order  to  disprove  this  assertion,  and  the  sending 
it  to  the  clergy  and  laity  of  the  Diocese,  and  Bishops  and  Stand- 
ing Committees  all  over  the  country ;  accusing  me  of  doctrines 
I  did  not  hold,  and  practices   I  did   not  practice.     I  was  there- 
by arraigned  by  three  Theological  Professors  of  a  well-known 
Theological  Seminary  before  the  whole  Church. 

g.  All  these  things  were  known  to  be  simply  part  of  a  crus- 
ade by  an  "aggressive  and  intolerant  faction,"  chiefly  without  the 
Diocese,  to  brand  men  who  could  not  utter  the  new  Shibboleth 
which  one  or  two  Bishops  had  indented,  as  the  sole  test  of  sound 
Churchmanship;  and  to   procure  the  practical  condemnation  of 
views  which  no  competent  ecclesiastical  court  would  dare  to  con- 
demn. 

h.  At  the  Council  men  came  with  speeches  prepared 
against  me,  and  things  were  said  and  done,  which  they  who  said 
and  did  them,  must  now  profoundly  regret. 

/.  Nominated  for  the  office  of  Bishop  on  the  last  day  of 
the  Council,  so  far  as  I  was  concerned,  it  was  no  question  of  an. 
Episcopal  Election,  but  I  was  on  trial  before  the  Diocese  and  the 
whole  land,  as  one  disloyal  to  the  Church  of  his  Baptism. 

/  I  was  placed  in  this  difficulty.  If  I  made  no  defence, 
it  would  have  been  justly  said,  what  has  been  said  about  my  previ- 


—3- 

ous  silence,  that  I  had  none  to  make ;  and  when  defeated,  that  I, 
and  something  more  important — the  doctrines  I  hold,  had  been 
condemned,  not  only  by  the  popular  voice,  but  by  my  brethren 
who  knew  me  best,  in  my  own  Diocese.  I  could  not  leave  the 
matter  to  my  friends,  for  in  matters  of  faith  no  one  is  content 
with  a  second-hand  statement  in  a  man's  favour,  though  human 
nature  is  so  constituted  that  it  too  readily  accepts  a  second-hand 
statement  against  him.  If  I  withdrew  my  name  after  I  had 
been  nominated,  and  then  defended  myself,  the  principle  would 
have  been  established,  that  Church  Newspapers,  and  Clergymen 
from  without  a  Diocese,  need  only  to  send  vehement  accusing 
words  into  that  Diocese,  with  sufficient  frequency  and  dexterity;  to 
secure  the  withdrawal  of  the  name  of  the  man  they  might  choose 
to  attack.  Once  grant  that  delicacy  required  this  on  the  part  of  the 
person  nominated,  and  a  veto  power  would  practically  be  given*to 
the  editors  of  church  newspapers  and  to  any  faction  in  the  Church, 
upon  the  free  nomination  of  a  Diocese;  and  if  unresisted  in  this 
case,  the  attempt  could  be  made  elsewhere,  and  under  other  cir- 
cumstances. 

It  has  been  said  that  there  was  no  precedent  for  my  action. 
This  is  not  a  correct  statement. 

In  the  General  Convention  of  1844,  the  election  of  Rev. 
Dr.  Hawks  to  the  Bishopric  of  Mississippi,  came  up  for  the  can- 
onical confirmation  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  delegates. 
The  election  had  passed  through  one  stage  indeed,  but  it  was 
still  undecided.  Charges  were  made  to  the  Lower  House  of 
General  Convention  against  his  moral  character,  and  Dr.  Hawks 
who  was  himself  a  delegate,  defended  himself  in  a  speech  of  sev- 
eral hours  to  the  Lower  House.  After  a  resolution  had  been 
passed  declaring  that  his  integrity  had  been  vindicated,  his  elec- 
tion was  not  confirmed.  I  was  myself  present  at  a  meeting  of  the 
Board  of  Trustees  of  the  General  Seminary  when  some  twelve  or  thir- 
teen Bishops  and  a  very  large  company  of  distinguished  Clergy 
and  Laity  had  met  together  to  act  upon  the  nomination  of  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Mahan  to  the  Professorship  of  Systematic  Divinity.  Dr. 
Mahan  had  been  publicly  accused,  as  I  have  been,  of  holding  Ro- 
manizing views  on  the  subject  of  Confession.  Before  the  election, 
Dr.  Mahan  defended  himself  from  these  charges  with  his  usual  clear- 


ness  and  theological  knowledge,  and  immediately  afterwards,  he 
was  elected  to  this  important  position,  all  but  one  or  at  most  two 
of  the  Bishops  voting  in  his  favour,  and  a  large  majority  'of 
Clergy  and  Laity. 

But  had  there  been  no  precedent  I  would  have  done  the 
same.  No  such  attack  had  ever  before  been  made  upon  one  nom- 
inated to  the  Episcopate.  It  was  stated  openly  that  it  was  not 
the  person  who  was  attacked  but  the  views  he  held  and  the  prac- 
tices he  practiced.  Thus  the  occasion  assumed  an  importance 
which  lifted  it  far  beyond  all  personal  considerations. 

When  I  spoke  therefore,  and  to  this  I  believe  the  heart  of 
every  true  gentleman  will  beat  responsive;  it  was  for  honesty  and 
straightforward  dealing,  for  the  rights  of  my  order  and  of  every 
Churchman,  for  the  truth  of  God  and  the  faith  of  my  forefathers. 
NUt  one  moment  bending  to  the  storm,  knowing  that  there 
was  no  possibility  of  my  election;  knowing  too,  what  would  be 
said  of  my  action;  but  holding  these  precious  rights  beyond  all 
false  delicacy,  I  spoke  ;  and  had  I  been  silent,  I  had  been  thrice 
a  coward. 

For  the  same  reason,  I  print  it  and  send  it  forth,  asking 
those  who  think  kindly  of  me  to  give  it  a  patient  reading,  and 
those  who  have  doubted  or  thought  ill  of  me,  in  the  quiet  calm 
of  this  holy  season,  to  weigh  words,  which,  if  they  do  not  con- 
vince, are  at  least  sincere. 

Racine  College,  Lent,  J874- 


Mr.  President,  and  Brethren  of  the  Council  : 

I  really  do  not  think,  after  all  that  has  been  so  kindly  said  in 
my  behalf,  and  in  view  of  the  feeble  character  of  the  attacks  upon 
me,  that  I  need  to  vindicate  myself.  I  do  not  feel  that  I  need 
to  convince  to-day  any  honest-hearted  man,  in  this  House,  that 
I  have  been  most  gravely  misrepresented.  I  would  leave  the 
whole  matter  just  as  it  is,  content  with  your  unspoken  verdict, 
were  it  not  for  one  thing.  It  is  not  for  Wisconsin  alone,  and  .for 
these  kind  friends  whom  years  have  only  bound  the  closer  to  me, 
that  I  speak.  I  am  arraigned  to-day  before  the  whole  Church  of 
the  United  States  of  America.  This  document,  full  of  cruel  ac- 
cusations, signed  by  six  Presbyters  of  this  Diocese,  has  been  sent 
all  over  this  Diocese.  It  has  been  also  sent  outside  of  this  Diocese, 
and  has  thus  been  scattered  far  and  wide.  It  is  not  a  question  of 
the  election  to  the  Episcopate.  That  is  immaterial,  and  is  in  the 
hands  of  God.  The  question  is,  as  to  whether  I  am  an  honest, 
loyal  clergyman  of  the  Church,  or  one  who  professing  to  be  so, 
teaches  doctrines  she  denies,  and  inculcates  practices  she  forbids. 
In  addition  to  this,  I  am  placed  by  God's  providence  at  the  head 
of  a  Church  College.  Its  only  claim  to  exist,  and  to  receive  the 
loving  favour  with  which  it  has  been  blessed,  is,  that  it  loyally  rep- 
resents the  Godly  discipline,  and  Christian  nurture,  which  have 
.been  for  generations  the  especial  glory  of  our  mother  Church. 
That  it  is  a  Church  College,  Catholic  not  Protestant,  Protestant 
not  Roman,  has  been  the  one  thing  that  has  commended  it.  If 
the  charges  of  my  brethren  are  true,  I  have  no  right  to  be  at  the 
head  of  it.  Nay ;  how  can  he  who  is  false  himself,  train  gentle 
children  and  brave  young  men,  in  manly  honour?  Take  notice 
also,  that  the  Rt.  Rev.  Dr.  Cummins  has  accused  me  of  enforc- 
ing confession  upon  the  students.  His  poor  band  of  ministers, 
in  every  sermon,  now  at  Chicago,  now  at  Detroit,  now  at  Peoria 
and  St.  Louis,  and  I  know  not  where  else,  have  even  given  as 
one  justification  of  their  schism,  that  enforced  confession  pre- 
vails at  Racine  College.  This  might  be  borne.  One  could 


— 6— 

reasonably  hope  that  loyal  Churchmen  might  love  the  more  a 
Priest,  whom  the  enemies  of  the  Church  saw  fit  to  speak  evil  of. 
The  Church  Journal also,  by  dexterous  insinuations  and  mis- 
leading hints,  has  left  impressions  which,  while  quite  incorrect, 
it  could  easily  say  it  had  never  expressed  in  so  many  words.  By 
refusing  to  admit  a  defence,  which  another  kindly  sent,  it 
was  made  to  seem  as  though  no  answer  could  be  made.  Some 
anonymous  correspondent  had  called  me  a  "standard  bearer," 
and  thus  it  was  made  to  appear  as  if  I  maintained  every  view  and 
practise,  which  any  ritualist  of  any  sort,  or  any  society  of  ritual- 
ists might  have  held,  from  the  publication  of  the  first  tract  for  the 
Times,  down  to  the  last  issue  of  the  Church  Times.  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, lam  the  "standard  bearer,"  if  you  will,  of  every  truth 
the  Prayer  Book  teaches,  and  of  none  others.  I  am  responsible 
for  every  word  I  have  myself  uttered ;  and  for  every  statement  of 
doctrine  I  have  myself  made ;  but  for  none  besides.  Be  they 
true  or  false,  no  man  can  justly  hold  me  responsible  for  them. 

Under  all  this,  too,  lies  a  great  principle.  The  Church  has 
provided  proper  safeguards  if  a  Diocese  selects  a  person  unfitted 
for  the  high  office  of  Bishop.  But  sad  will  be  the  day,  if  before 
an  Episcopal  election,  Church  papers  can  feel  that  they  may  be- 
come campaign  documents,  and  Clergymen  think  it  their  duty 
to  send  into  a  mourning  Diocese,  bitter  accusing  words  of  some 
one  of  their  Brethren. 

But  in  addition  to  this  I  am  accused  by  six  of  my  brethren,  in 
my  own  Diocese,  among  my  own  people.  Believe  me  when  I  say, 
that  grievously  wronged  as  I  have  been,  I  have  no  unkind  feelings 
toward  these  gentlemen.  I  think,  as  I  have  said,  that  they  have 
been  wrong  and  done  me  wrong.  Some  of  them  I  fancy  begin  to 
feel  it.  They  cannot  have  clear  consciences  about  it.  One  of 
them,  indeed,  (the  Rev.  Mr.  Parke)  has  withdrawn  his  name  and 
expressed  his  sorrow  for  signing  it.  But,  and  here  is  the 
difficulty,  just  in  proportion  as  the  virtue,  and  honour  and  ven- 
erable character  of  some  of  these  gentlemen  are  believed  in,  in  that 
proportion  is  the  paper  the  heavier  charge  against  me.  With  two 
of  them,  Dr.  Adams  and  Dr.  Kemper,  I  have  had  a  friendship  of 
twenty  years,  interrupted,  I  know,  by  an  occasional  disagree- 
ment, but  still,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  without  the  loss,  until 


-T- 

this  sad  occasion,  of  honest  regard  for  them.  This  document  goes 
out  to  the  Church  strengthened  by  their  supposed  friendship  and 
long  knowledge  of  me,  and  by  every  virtue  that  they  possess. 
And  it  is  just  so  much  more  of  a  charge  against  me,  and  makes  it 
so  much  the  more  imperative  upon  me  that  I  should  defend  my- 
self. 

I  hope  however  that  my  Brethren  will  remember,  that  I  have 
never  made  a  statement  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  except 
the  one  I  made  in  the  general  Convention  of  1871,  and  after- 
wards in  a  correspondence  which  took  place  between  myself  and 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Craik,  of  Kentucky.  The  other  matters  which 
have  been  spoken  of,  in  the  course  of  the  speeches,  but  which 
are  not  mentioned  in  the  document,  took  place  earlier  still,  be- 
fore the  meeting  of  that  general  Convention.  These  false  doc- 
trines of  mine,  if  they  be  false,  and  these  wrong  practices,  if 
they  be  wrong,  have  been  held  and  known  for  at  least  three 
years,  and  yet  this  is  the  first  time  they  have  thought  it  proper 
publicly  to  take  me  to  task  for  them.  At  their  ordination 
these  gentlemen  promised  "  with  all  faithful  diligence  to  banish 
and  drive  away  from  the  church  all  erroneous  and  strange  doc- 
trines contrary  to  God's  word."  The  church  provides  a  definite 
way  for  them  to  do  this.  If  I  have  ever  held  or  taught  some  of 
the  views,  mentioned  in  this  document,  I  am  liable  to  prosecution 
for  false  doctrine.  And,  Mr.  President,  if  any  Presbyters  will  come 
forward  and  present  me  for  false  doctrine  on  the  ground  that 
I  hold  what  is  taught  in  that  document,  I  am  ready  to  bear  my 
trial,  and  will  put  no  obstacles  in  their  way.  This  is  the  legiti- 
mate way  ;  but  to  wait  until  the  question  of  the  Episcopate  comes 
up,  and  then  to  circulate  a  series  of  charges  against  me,  in  such 
a  way  too,  that  I  cannot  defend  myself,  this  is  to  be  an  accuser 
of  one's  Brethren,  and  to  do  that  which  all  honourable  men  must 
condemn. 

And  now  let  me  say  that  I  have  no  wish  to  hide 
from  any  member  of  the  council,  or  any  man  or  woman  in  this 
diocese,  just  what  I  hold  and  just  what  I  do.  There  are  some 
things  that  are  true  in  this  paper.  If  it  had  been  all  false,  it 
would  not  have  been  so  effective.  It  is  the  skill  of  the  document, 
that  it  mingles  the  false  and  the  true,  and  so  mingles  them  that 


-8- 

the  unskilled  man  would  not  be  able  to  distinguish  them.  It  is 
so  dexterously  arranged,  that  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that 
the  majority  of  laymen  who  have  come  to  the  council,  have  come 
believing  me  to  be  a  Romanizer,  because  of  this  document.  I 
therefore  take  up,  and  propose  to  examine  the  paper  entitled, 

''PRINCIPLES  NOT  MEN."* 

First  I  must  call  your  attention  to  the  note  which  the  six 
Presbyters  have  signed  ;  they  say  "  They  have  seen  an  article  in 
the  Milwaukee  papers  of  Jan.  31st,"  which  they  reprint.  And  yet 
Dr.  Egar,  one  of  the  signers  of  this  note,  has  told  us  on  this 
floor,  that  he  himself  was  the  author  of  the  anonymous  article.  In 
a  matter  so  grave  as  an  accusation  against  a  fellow  Presbyter, 
and  in  defence  of  what  they  must  call  the  truth,  does  this  seem 
altogether  sincere  ?  They  speak  of  it  as  a  thing  they  had  acci- 
dentally seen,  as  though  they  had  not  known  who  the  author 
was,  and  all  about  it.  It  is  a  sort  of  thing  which  is  sometimes 
done  I  am  aware  ;  but  scarcely  with  clean  hands  and  pure  lips. 

Second,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  first  and  second  para- 
graphs of  the  document.  It  does  not  say  in  so  many  words,  but 
it  carefully  insinuates  that  the  "  interview"  between  myself  and 
others  with  the  reporter  of  the  Times  was  the  result  on  my  part 
of  "previous  instructions.' '  The  statement  of  the  charge  will  be,  I 
think,  to  those  who  know  me,  its  own  refutation.  I  made  every  ef- 
fort to  avoid  the  "interview,"  and  if  it  seemed  to  be  favorable  to 
me,  I  will  venture  to  suggest,  that  this  was  due  not  to  political 
chicanery  on  my  part,  but  to  the  fact  that  the  truth  was  on  my 
side. 

Third,  I  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  the  question  of 

THE  "PHILLIMORE  JUDGEMENT." 

In  the  general  Convention  of  1871,  a  new  Canon  on 
the  subject  of  Ritual  was  proposed,  to  which  in  common 
with  many  of  my  Brethren  I  was  earnestly  opposed.  The 
discussions  upon  the  subject  almost  necessarily  brought  up  the 
question  of  the  Eucharist.  Men  upon  the  floor  of  the  house, 

*See  Appendix  ii. 


— 9— 

had  uttered  very  low  views  upon  this  important  subject.  I  felt 
it  my  duty,  boldly  to  state  a  view  of  the  Eucharist,  which  the 
church  allowed,  and  which  I  myself  held. 

The  Court  of  Arches,  (which  while  not  the  highest  court  of 
appeal  in  England,  has  nevertheless  been  regarded  as  the  highest 
ecclesiastical  court,  because  it  is  the  Archbishop's  court,  though 
a  lay  Judge  presides  in  it,  as  his  "official  Principal,")  had  tried 
and  given  sentence  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Bennett.  Mr.  Bennett 
on  conscientious  grounds  had  refused  to  appear  either  personally  or 
by  counsel,  and  thus  was  totally  undefended.  In  spite  of  this, 
Sir  Robert  Phillimore,  the  Judge  of  the  Court  of  Arches,  had  de- 
cided that  the  words  "  the  real  actual  presence  of  our  Lord  under 
the  form  of  bread  and  wine  upon  the  altars  of  our  churches,"  and 
"  who  myself  adore,  and  teach  the  people  to  adore  Christ  present 
in  the  elements  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine,"  "did  not 
contravene  the  formularies  of  our  Faith."  He  said.  "  If  I  were 
to  pronounce  that  they  did  so,  I  should  be  passing  sentence  in 
my  opinion,  upon  a  long  roll  of  illustrious  Divines,  who  have 
adorned  our  Universities,  and  fought  the  good  fight  of  our 
church,  from  Ridley  to  Keble— from  the  Divine  whose  martyr- 
dom the  cross  at  Oxford  commemorates,  to  the  Divine  in  whose 
honour  the  University  has  founded  her  last  College."  [Philli- 
more Judgement,  pp.  133  and  134.] 

The  case  was  carried  up  on  appeal  to  the  Judicial  Committee 
of  the  Privy  Council,  a  court  without  the  slightest  claim  to  the 
name  of  ecclesiastical,  and  which  was  so  poorly  constituted  that 
it  has  within  the  past  year,  in  the  shape  in  which  it  existed  at 
the  time  spoken  of,  been  abolished  by  Parliament.  It  is  quite 
true  that  some  of  the  Bishops  might  sit  as  Privy  Councillors,  and  the 
judgement  of  the  council  was  written,  it  is  said,  by  the  Arch- 
bishop of  York.  The  judgement  was  given  June  8th  1872,  more 
than  six  months  after  the  general  Convention.  But,  and  here  is 
the  point,  though  Mr.  Bennett  was  again  undefended  by  counsel 
the  Judicial  Committee  were  compelled  to  acquit  him.  In  other 
words  both  courts  decided  that  the  words  of  Mr.  Bennett  could  be 
used,  and  such  views  be  held  by  a  Priest  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  not  contravene  the  formularies  of  the  faith.  It  makes  no  differ- 
ence, that  the  Archbishop  of  York  should  have  indulged  in  the 


—10— 

Judgement  in  some  harsh  epithets.  The  Judgement  of  the  Judicial 
Committee  states  distinctly,  "It  is  not  the  part  of  the  Court  of  Ar- 
ches nor  of  this  Committee,  to  usurp  the  functions  of  a  Synod  or  of 
a  Council.  Happily  their  duties  are  much  more  circumscribed, 
namely  whether  certain  statements  are  so  far  repugnant  to,  or  con- 
tradictory of,  the  language  of  the  articles  and  formularies,  con- 
strued in  their  plain  meaning,  that  they  should  receive  judicial 
condemnation."  [Judgement  of  Judicial  Committee,  p.  303,  in 
the  argument  of  A.  J.  Stephens,  Q.  C.  See.]  Everything  there- 
fore in  it,  or  in  the  Judgement  of  the  Court  of  Arches,  which 
went  beyond  the  acquittal  of  Mr.  Bennett,  rests  upon  its  own 
merits.  The  acquittal  remains,  the  rest  are  obiter  dicta.  I  must 
object  here  to  Dr.  Adams'  style  of  reasoning,  which  because  I  have 
adopted  certain  "adjudicated  words,"  makes  me  responsible  for 
everything  Mr.  Bennett  may  have  said  in  his  "Plea  for  Toleration." 
I  am  of  course  responsible  for  every  word  of  Mr.  Bennett's  I 
have  adopted,  but  for  none  other. 

The  words  were  really,  however,  the  words  of  Dr.  Pusey 
rather  than  of  Mr.  Bennett,  and  they  were  quoted  by  me  as  the 
decision  of  a  Judicial  Tribunal,  and  cannot  be  so  used  as  to  in- 
volve me  in  any  other  expressions  of  the  party  on  trial.  They 
are  quoted  as  the  lawyer  or  the  Judge  when  appealing  to  authority 
cites  a  legal  decision.  This  is  a  principle  too  plain  to  need 
further  enforcement.  This  will  serve  also  to  explain  the  fact 
that  I  did  not  even  quote  Mr.  Bennett's  words,  which  were  "  in 
the  sacrament"  not  "in  the  elements."  I  was  quoting  a  judicial 
decision  and  took  it  as  it  was. 

This  statement  will  serve  to  correct  a  mistake  into  which  many 
have  fallen.  In  the  first  edition  of  the  "  Plea  for  Toleration," 
Mr.  Bennett  used  expressions  which  cannot  be  defended.  In  the 
third  edition  he  substituted  for  them  the  phrases  "the  real  actual 
Presence  of  our  Lord  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine  upon  the 
Altars  of  our  Churches,"  and  "who  myself  adore  and  teach  the 
people  to  adore  Christ  present  in  the  Sacrament  under  the  torm 
of  bread  and  wine."  For  these  expressions  he  was  tried.  Sir 
Robert  Phillimore  in  his  judgement  substituted  for  Sacrament  the 
word  Elements  and  adjudicated  these  words.  He  probably  did 
so  because  in  Mr.  Bennett's  use  and  in  Sir  Robert  Phillimore's 


—11- 

judgement  the  words  are  precisely  equivalent.  They  are  not 
necessarily  equivalent,  but  in  the  present  case  they  were  so.  Mr. 
Stephens  in  his  argument  against  Mr.  Bennett,  before  the  Judi- 
cial Committee,  also  regards  them  as  equivalent.  But  whether 
this  be  so  or  not  is  immaterial  to  my  argument,  for  I  was  quoting 
not  Mr.  Bennett's  or  Dr.  Pusey's  words,  but  a  judicial  decision, 
and  so  was  bound,  of  course,  to  give  the  very  words  of  that  de- 
cision, which  I  did  in  the  General  Convention,  quoting  directly 
from  it,  and  which  I  do  now.  It  must  also  be  remembered  that 
the  judgement  of  the  Judicial  Committee,  from  which  people 
generally  quote,  gives  Mr.  Bennett's  words  exactly,  but  as  this 
judgement  was  not  given  until  more  than  six  months  after  the 
General  Convention,  it  was  impossible  for  me  to  quote  it. 

My  own  view  of  the  Presence  I  have  expressed  throughout 
the  present  "defence"  by  the  words  "in  sacramental  union 
with  the  consecrated  elements,"  which  expresses  what  I  mean 
by  "in  the  elements,"  and  guards  against  a  danger  to  which 
those  words  are  possibly,  though  not  necessarily  exposed.  They 
show,  what  I  have  always  maintained,  that  the  Presence  in 
the  Elements  is  not  a  material,  but  a  spiritual  and  Sacramental 
Presence.  Therefore  in  using  the  words  of  the  "  Philli- 
more  Judgment"  I  did  so  with  the  most  careful  explanation.  I 
said  they  were  words  "  bolder  and  barer  than  any  I  would  use 
except  in  a  company  of  theologians."  I  declared  that  I  did  not 
believe  in  Transubstantiation.  I  asserted  that  the  Presence  in  the 
Holy  Elements  was  not  material  or  carnal,  but  spiritual.  I  even 
went  so  far  as  to  add  something  to  the  words  of  the  judgement, 
using  instead  of  "who  myself  adore  and  teach  my  people  to  adore 
Christ  present  in  the  elements  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine," 
these  words  :  who  myself  adore  and  would,  if  it  were  necessary  or 
my  duty,  teach  my  people  to  adore,  &c.  I  added  these  words, 
because  then  and  ever  since  I  have  only  maintained  Eucharistical 
adoration,  as  a  view  rightly  devotionally  resulting  from  the  Church's 
doctrine  of  the  real  objective  Presence,  but  not  specifically  en- 
joined in  any  doctrinal  formula. 

THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST. 

There  are  three  questions  which  may  be  asked  in  regard  to 
the  Holy  Eucharist : 


-12- 

i 

1 .  What  is  present  ? 

2.  Where  is  it  present? 

3.  How  is  it  present  ? 

To  each  one  of"  these  interrogatories  three  answers  may  be 
given.  First,  How  is  it  present  ?  The  Roman  Catholic  answers? 
by  Transubstantiation.  The  Lutheran  answers,  by  Consubstan- 
tiation.  The  Zwinglian  answers,  Figuratively.  The  Churchman 
denies  the  three,  and  when  pressed  to  say  how  Christ  is  present 
he  answers,  '  I  cannot  tell  how ;  it  is  a  mystery,  and  I  believe 
and  adore.' 

The  second  question  is,  "What  is  present?"  As  to  this 
there  are  three  different  views  held  in  the  Church  : 

a.  That  it  is  the  grace  of  God's  Holy  Spirit  which  is  present. 

b.  That  it  is  a  gift  which  is  the  same  as  though  it  were  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ,  and  yet  is  not  that  body  and  blood. 

c.  That  it  is  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  though  not  by  Tran- 

substantiation,   Consubstantiation,   or  Figuratively,    as  the 
Zwinglians  say. 

The  third  question  is,  "Where  is  it  present?"  And  here 
again  are  three  answers  : 

a.  In  the  heart  of  the  faithful  receiver. 

b.  Before  reception,  outside  of  the  faithful   receiver,  but  not   in 

connection  with  the  holy  elements. 

c.  After   consecration   and   before    reception,    in    sacramental 

union  with  the  consecrated  elements. 

This  is  my  own  view.  I  cannot  say  how  it  is  present.  I 
deny  that  it  is  by  Transubstantiation,  Consubstantiation,  or  any 
other  device  of  human  reason.  As  to  what  is  present,  I  say  it  is 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  and  as  to  where  it  is  present,  I 
assert  that  it  is  in  sacramental  union  with  the  consecrated  ele- 
ments, to  be  the  spiritual  food  of  the  faithful. 

The  view  is  expressed  in  a  speech  made  by  one  of  my  ac- 
cusers, the  Rev.  Dr.  Egar,  in  the  General  Convention,  (p  464 

of  Debates) . 

"  How  gentlemen  can  stand  on  this  floor  and  tell  us  that  there  is  no  real 
Presence  in  the  Sacrament,  (I  use  these  words  now  with  a  sense  of  the  highest 
awe,  on  a  most  solemn  subject,  and  with  sorrow,  now  that  I  am  obliged  to  speak 
in  this  way,  but  I  cannot  permit  these  statements  of  doctrine  to  remain  un- 


-13- 

challenged,)  how  can  gentlemen  deny  that  there  is  a  real  Presence  if  they  have 
ever  learned  their  Church  catechism  ?  For  what  does  the  Church  catechism 
tell  us  in  respect  to  a  sacrament  ?  It  tells  us  that  a  sacrament  consists  of  two 
parts — an  outward  and  visible  Sign,  and  an  inward  and  spiritual  grace — that  is  to 
say,  a  Sacrament  is  a  whole  of  which  there  are  two  parts,  the  one  visible  and  the 
other  invisible ;  that  in  respect  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  visible  part  is  bread 
and  wine ;  the  invisible  part  is  the  body  and  blood  of  our  blessed  Lord.  Now 
when  you  define  a  Sacrament  that  is  to  consist  of  two  parts,  one  of  which  is  the 
body  and  blood,  I  do  not  see  how  you  can  eliminate  from  that,  the  one  part, 
and  leave  the  other  part  alone.  I  object  then  to  the  doctrinal  basis  on  which 
this  argument  has  been  conducted.  I  say  the  gentlemen  who  have  given 
this  definition  of  a  Ritualist  which  it  is  designed  to  put  down,  are  going  in  the 
face  of  the  Catechism,  and  are  going  in  the  face  of  the  whole  of  the  doctrine 
of  this  Church.  That  is  to  say,  so  far  as  they  have  given  us  a  definition  of  the 
thing  as  a  tangible  thing,  they  tell  you  that  if  you  admit  that  doctrine  which 
the  great  majority  of  us  here  do  admit,  all  these  other  things  follow  logically 
from  it." 

Let  it  be  noticed,  Mr.  President,  that  the  ''Reverend  Depu- 
ty from  Massachusetts,"  whom  Dr.  Egar  refers  to  in  his  speech 
and  was  answering  ( Dr.  Vinton),  had  said, (p.  392  of  the  debates) : 
"That  one  solitary  idea,  the  presence  of  Christ  in  union  with 
the  elements  of  the  Sacrament,  no  matter  by  what  term  soever  it 
be  designated — corporal,  objective,  local,  hyperphysical — any- 
thing that  implies  the  connection,  the  association  or  incorpora- 
tion of  the  one  with  the  other,  was  the  single  idea  repudiated  by 
the  Reformed  Church  of  England. "  Dr.  Egar,  on  the  other  hand, 
maintained  the  Sacramental  union  between  the  bread  and  wine 
and  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord.  In  this,  too,  he  is  sup- 
ported by  divines  almost  too  many  to  mention,  of  the  Church 
of  England.  I  will  only  give  the  famous  passage  of  the  great 
Bishop  Pearson,  (article  III.  of  the  Creed,  page  238  of  Nicholls' 
edition : 

"  Vain  therefore  was  that  old  conceit  of  Eutyches,  who  thought  the  union 
to  be  made  so  in  the  natures,  that  the  humanity  was  absorbed  and  wholly- 
turned  into  the  Divinity,  so  that  by  that  Transubstantiation  the  human  na- 
ture had  no  longer  being.  And  well  did  the  Ancient  Fathers,  who  opposed 
this  heresy,  make  use  of  the  Sacramental  union  between  the  bread  and  wine 
and  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  thereby  showed  that  the  human  nature 
of  Christ  is  no  more  really  converted  into  the  Divinity,  and  so  ceaseth  to  be 
the  human  nature,  than  the  substance  of  the  bread  and  wine  is  really  con~ 
verted  into  the  substance  of  the  body  and  blood,  and  thereby  ceaseth  to  be  both 


—14- 

bread  and  wine ;  from  whence  it  is,  by  the  way,  observable  that  the  Church  in 
those  days  understood  no  such  doctrine  as  that  of  Transubstantiation." 

The  note  after  giving  the  often  quoted  passages  from  Gelasi- 
us  and  Theodoret,  which  will  be  given  in  a  quotation  hereafter 
to  be  made  from  Bishop  Andrewes,  concludes  with  this  striking 
passage  :  "As  therefore  all  the  metastoicheiosis  (transformation)  of 
the  sacramental  elements  maketh  them  not  cease  to  be  of  the  same 
nature  which  before  they  were,  so  the  human  nature  of  Christ 
joined  to  the  Divine,  loseth  not  the  nature  of  humanity,  but  con- 
tinueth  with  the  Divinity  as  a  substance  in  itself  distinct,  and  so 
Christ  doth  subsist  not  only  of,  but  in  two  natures — as  the  Coun- 
cil of  Chalcedon  determined  against  Eutyches."  The  same  doc- 
trine is  taught  in  the  most  striking  way  by  Bishop  Andrewes  in 
his  sermon  XVI.  of  the  Nativity,  [vol.  i,  pp.  282-283  of  the 
Angl.  Cath.  Lib.:] 

"And  the  gathering  or  vintage  of  these  two"  (Christ,  the  bread  of  life, 
the  true  vine,  and  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine,)  "in  the  blessed  Eucharist 
is,  as  I  may  say,  a  kind  of  hypostatical  union  of  the  sign  and  the  thing  signified, 
so  united  together  as  are  the  two  natures  of  Christ.  And  even  from  this  sac- 
ramental union  do  the  Fathers  borrow  their  resemblance,  to  illustrate  by  it  the 
personal  union  in  Christ;  I  name  Theodoret  for  the  Greek,  and  Gelasius  for 
the  Latin  Church,  that  insist  upon  it  both  and  press  it  against  Eutyches  :  That 
even  as  in  the  Eucharist,  neither  part  is  evacuate  or  turned  into  the  other,  but 
abide  each  still  in  his  former  nature  and  substance,  no  more  is  either  of 
Christ's  natures  annulled,  or  one  of  them  converted  into  the  other,  as  Euty- 
ches held,  but  each  nature  remaineth  still  full  and  whole  in  his  own  kind. 
And,  backwards,  as  the  two  natures  in  Christ,  so  the  signum  (sign)  and  sig- 
natum  (thing  signified)  in  the  Sacrament,  e  conveno." 

The  present  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  Dr.  Moberly,  (Bampton 
Lectures  for  1868,  p.  171,)  sums  it  all  up  as  follows  : 

"  I  will  therefore  only  say  that  the  ancient  doctrine  of  the  Church,  and  as 
I  read  it,  the  unquestionable  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  is,  that  the 
spiritual  Presence  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  our  Lord  in  the  Holy  Communion 
is  objective  and  real.  I  do  not  see  how  we  can  consent,  as  with  Hooker 
and  Waterland,  to  limit  authoritatively  that. presence  to  the  heart  of  the  re- 
ceiver :  for  the  words  of  the  institution  (and  these  are  cases  in  which  we  are 
rigidly  and  absolutely  bound  to  the  exact  words  of  the  revelation)  the  words, 
I  say,  of  the  Lord  in  the  institution  seem  to  forbid  such  a  gloss." 

This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  real  Presence,  I  believe ;  and 
which  I  am  sure  Dr.  Egar,  and  perhaps  all  the  Professors  at 
Nashotah,  hold.  I  will  give  also  the  admirable  words  of  Mr. 


—15- 

Palmer  in  his  Treatise  of  the  Church,  vol.  i.  part  ii,  chap,  vii, 
pp.  526-531. 

"  Her  doctrine  concerning  the  true  presence  appears  to  be  limited  to  the 
following  points :  "Taking  as  her  immovable  foundation  the  words  of  Jesus 
Christ :  '  This  is  My  Body ;  .  .  This  is  My  Blood  of  the  new  covenant ;'  and 
'  Whoso  eateth  My  Flesh  and  drinketh  My  Blood  hath  eternal  life ;'  she  be- 
lieves that  the  Body  or  Flesh,  and  the  Blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Creator  and 
Redeemer  of  the  world,  both  God  and  Man,  united  indivisibly  in  One  Person, 
are  verily  and  indeed  given  to,  taken,  eaten,  and  received  by  the  faithful  in 
the  Lord's  Supper,  under  the  outward  sign  or  '  form  of  bread  and  wine,' 
which  is,  on  this  account,  the '  partaking  or  communion  of  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ.'  She  believes  that  the  Eucharist  is  not  the  sign  of  an  absent  body 
and  that  those  who  partake  of  it  receive  not  merely  the  figure,  or  shadow  or 
sign  of  Christ's  Body,  but  the  reality  itself.  And,  as  Christ's  Divine  and 
Human  Natures  are  inseparably  united,  so  she  believes  that  we  receive  in  the 
Eucharist,  not  only  the  Flesh  and  Blood  of  Christ,  but  Christ  Himself,  both 
God  and  Man.  Resting  on  these  words,  '  The  bread  which  we  break  is  it  not 
the  communion  of  the  Body  of  Christ  ?'  and  again,  '  I  will  not  drink  hence- 
forth of  this  fruit  of  the  vine :'  she  holds  that  the  nature  of  the  bread  and  wine 
continues  after  consecration,  and  therefore  rejects  transubstantiation,  or  « the 
change  of  the  substance,'  which  supposes  the  nature  of  bread  entirely  to  cease 
by  consecration.  As  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  preceding  truths,  and 
admonished  by  Christ  Himself,  '  It  is  the  spirit  that  quickeneth,  the  flesh 
profiteth  nothing :  the  words  that  I  speak  unto  you  they  are  spirit  and  they 
are  life ;'  she  holds  that  the  Presence  (and  therefore  the  eating)  of  Christ's 
Body  and  Blood,  though  true,  is  altogether  '  heavenly  and  spiritual,'  of  a  kind 
which  is  inexplicable  by  any  carnal  or  earthly  experience  or  imagination : 
even  as  the  Sortship  of  the  Eternal  Word  of  God,  and  His  Incarnation, 
and  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  immeasurable  by  human  understand- 
ings. 

"  Believing  according  to  the  Scriptures,  that  Christ  ascended  in  His  nat- 
ural Body  into  Heaven,  and  shall  only  come  from  thence  at  the  end  of  the 
world ;  she  rejects,  for  this  reason,  as  well  as  the  last,  any  such  real  Presence 
of  Christ's  Body  and  Blood  as  is  corporal  or  orgahical,  that  is,  according  to 
the  known  and  earthly  mode  of  existence  of  a  body.  Resting  on  the  Divine 
promise,  'Whoso  eateth  My  Flesh  and  drinketh  My  Blood  hath  eternal  life,' 
she  regards  it  as  the  more  pious  and  probable  opinion,  that  the  wicked,  those 
who  are  totally  devoid  of  true  and  living  faith,  do  not  partake  of  the  Holy 
Flesh  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  God  withdrawing  from  them  so  '  divine  '  a 
gift,  and  not  permitting  His  enemies  to  partake  of  it.  And  hence  she  holds 
that  such  a  faith  is  '  the  means  by  which  the  body  of  Christ  is  received  and 
eaten,'  '  a  necessary  instrument  in  all  these  holy  ceremonies ;'  because  it  is 
the  essential  qualification  on  our  parts,  without  which  that  Body  is  not  received. 
"  Following  the  example  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Apostles, 


—16- 

and  supported  by  their  authority,  she  believes  that  '  the  blessing '  or  '  conse- 
cration' of  the  bread  and  wine  is  not  without  effect,  but  that  it  operates  a  real 
change  ;  for  when  the  Sacrament  is  thus  perfected,  she  regards  it  as  so  'divine 
a  thing,'  so  'heavenly  a  food,'  that  we  must  not  ' presume'1  to  approach  it 
with  unprepared  minds,  and  that  sinners,  although  they  only  partake  of  the 
bread  and  wine,  partake  of  them  to  their  own  condemnation,  because  they 
impiously  disregard  the  Lord's  .Body,  which  is  truly  present  in  that  Sacrament. 
Hence  it  is  that  the  Church  believing  firmly  in  the  real  Presence  of  the 
'  precious  and  Blessed  Body  and  Blood  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,'  speaks 
of  the  Eucharist  as  'high  and  holy  mysteries,'  exhorts  us  to  consider  the 
'  dignity  of  that  holy  mystery,'  that  '  heavenly  feast,'  that  '  holy  Table,' 
'  the  banquet  of  that  most  Heavenly  food,'  even  'the  King  of  kings' 
Table.'" 

I  will  conclude  this  part  of  my  argument  with  the  words  of 
a  Clergyman  in  high  position  in  the  American  Church,  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Dix,  Rector  of  Trinity  Church,  New  York.  [Manual  of 
Instruction  for  Confirmation  Classes  pp.  53  and  54.] 

IV.      THE  SACRAMENTAL   ASPECT. 

Three  things  concur  to  the  completeness  of  this  Holy  Mystery  in  its  Sacra- 
mental character  : 

1.  The  outward  visible  sign. 

2.  The  inward  part  and  thing  signified. 

3.  The  benefits  conferred  thereby. 

These  must  not  be  confused ;  especially  must  the  second  and  third  be 
kept  distinct  in  our  thoughts.  The  inward  part  is  not  to  be  confounded  with 
the  benefits,  for  they  are  distinct.  The  Sacrament  is  complete  in  itself  when, 
by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  by  the  words  of  Consecration,  the  Bread 
and  Wine  become  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ ;  but  whether  a  man  receive 
benefit  or  condemnation  in  partaking,  depends  on  his  interior  state,  the  sin- 
cerity of  his  repentance,  the  strength  of  his  faith,  &c. 

V.      EXPLANATIONS. 

1.  The  Sign:    called  Sacramentum.     Bread   and   Wine;    simple  ele- 
ments of  daily  sustenance.     These  remain  in  their  proper  substance  after  Con- 
secration, retaining  their   proper  nature.     And  yet  they  undergo   a  mystical 
change  whereby  they  become  the  forms  under  which  Christ  is  present. 

2.  The  Ihing  Signified :  called  Res.     The  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  ; 
His  Glorified  Humanity,  which,  after  a  manner  inexplicable  and  without  any 
parallel  in  the  range  of  our   knowledge,  becomes  present  after  consecration, 
not  locally  or  physically,  according  to  the  laws  of  material  and  carnal  bodies, 
but  supra-locally,  hyper-physically,  and  spiritually,   in  some  way  believed   on 
by  the  Church  but  known  only  to  God.     The  Ancient  Catholic  Fathers  never 


—17- 

sought  to  explain  the  Mystery  of  the  Real  Presence ;  they  held  it  simply  and 
sincerely,  loving  and  adoring. 

3.      The  Benefits  :  called    Virtus. 

These  are  the  results  of  a  faithful  and  devout  reception  of  the  Holy  Sacra- 
ment : 

(a)  Continuance  and  maintenance  of  our  union  with  God  through 
Christ. 

(l>)  Assurance  of  God's  favour  and  goodness  towards  us  (see  Post  Com- 
munion). 

(f)     The  forgiveness  of  sins. 

(d)     The  promise  of  a  part  in  the  resurrection  of  the  Just  at  the  last  day. 

(<•)  The  grace,  general  and  special,  which  is  needed  for  attaining  the 
Divine  promises  and  obtaining  the  desire  of  the  soul. 

EUCHARISTICAL  ADORATION. 

The  doctrine  of  Eucharistical  adoration  clearly  implied  in  the 
last  two  extracts,  is  deduced  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  ob- 
jective Presence,  by  the  following  argument : 

1.  "The  Sacred  Humanity  of  our  Lord  is  inseparable  from 
His  Divine-  Personality,  that  is  from  Himself,  so  that  where  It  is 
present  He  is  present,  the  one  Christ,  both  God  and  man." 

2.  "The  one  Christ,  both  God  and  man,  wheresoever  He 
is  present  is  adorable. ' ' 

3.  "  He  is  present  by  virtue  of  the  supernatural  presence 
of  the  Sacred  Humanity  in  the  Blessed  Eucharist." 

4.  Therefore  in  the  Blessed  Eucharist.     He  being  present  is 
adorable."     (See  Defence  of  the  Bishop  of  Brechin  pp.  210  and 
211.) 

Now  I  know  that  this  question  is  one  of  the  most  difficult 
in  Theology.  Some  people  who  are  loud  in  their  denunciations 
of  it  do  not  even  know  what  is  meant  by  it.  The  ordinary  ob- 
jections to  Eucharistic  adoration  are  first,  that  it  is  idolatry,  or 
leads  thereto.  To  this  I  reply. 

1.  That  the  worship  is  not   paid  to   the   Holy   Elements, 
though  they  are  to  be  regarded  with  reverence. 

2.  That  this  worship  would  not  be  addressed  even  to  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  in  sacramental  union  with  the  Holy  Ele- 
ments, could  they  be  supposed  to  subsist,   (which   is   impossible, 
though  some  seem  to  hold  it),  apart  from  ffis  Divine 


-18- 

3.  This  worship  is  given  and  only  given  to  the  Divine 
Person  of  the  Son  of  God,  present  in  Sacramental  union  with 
the  Holy  Elements.  Yet  because  His  person  is  Divine  and 
Spiritual,  not  as  though  He  were,  or  could  be  confined  to  that 
locality. 

The  second  objection  is,  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  verity  of 
Christ's  Human  nature,  to  suppose  that  it  can  have  a  Presence 
in  Sacramental  union  with  the  Holy  Elements. 

To  this  I  reply,  that  the  "  corporal  Presence  of  Christ's 
natural  Flesh  and  Blood"  as  it  is  called  in  the  black  rubric  of 
the  English  Prayer  Book,  can  be  only  at  the  right  Hand  of  God  ; 
but  Christ's  glorified  Body,  which  can  pass  through  closed  doors, 
and  ascend  beyond  the  farthest  stars  with  a  speed  infinitely 
greater  than  light;  this  "Spiritual  Body"  of  which  St.  Paul 
speaks,  may  have  besides  its  corporal  Presence  at  the  right  Hand 
of  God,  a  Spiritual  (after  the  manner  of  a  spirit)  Presence  in  the 
Holy  Sacrament. 

And  if  any  one  says  this  may  be  so,  but  what  proof  is 
there  that  it  is  so,  I  answer  in  the  words  of  Him  who  said, 
"  This  is  my  Body,  This  is  my  Blood." 

The  third  objection  is,  That  granting  the  objective  Presence 
of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  in  Sacramental  union  with  the 
Holy  Elements,  the  objective  point  of  all  our  worship  ought  to 
be  Heaven.  'Our  Lord  taught  us  to  say  "  Our  Father  which  art 
in  Heaven."  'The  Communion  orifice  bids  us  "Lift  up  our 
hearts."  'It  may  be  right  to  worsliip  Christ  by  means  of  the 
Eucharist,  but  the  worship  must  be  addressed  to  Heaven.' 

To  this  I  reply,  that  it  always  seems  to  me  a  feeble  objec- 
tion on  the  part  of  those  who  acknowledge  an  objective  Pres- 
ence. Whether  I  conceive  Heaven  opened,  and  by  the  eye  of 
faith  discern  the  "Lamb  as  it  had  been  slain,"  and  myself  borne 
upward  there,  to  be  fed  by  his  unfailing  love  ;  or  by  the  same 
faith,  see  no  longer  Altar  and  Priest  and  earthly  Elements,  but 
behold  Christ  coming  to  me  and  feeding  me  with  Himself;  there 
seems  to  be  no  real  difference,  we  worship  the  same  Christ  and 
are  fed  with  the  same  Gift. 

I  believe  it  too,  to  be  contrary  to  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
The  Jews  were  taught  to  worship  God  wheresoever  He  manifest- 


-19- 

ed  Himself ;  under  human  or  angelic  form;  in  the  burning 
bush  ;  on  Mount  Sinai ;  as  the  "  Captain  of  the  Lord's  Host ;"  in 
the  Pillar  of  Cloud  coming  down  to  the  door  of  the  Tabernacle 
and  talking  with  Moses,  which  when  the  people  saw,  "  they 
worshipped  every  man  in  the  door  of  his  tent;"  in  the  cloud  that 
filled  the  Lord's  House  at  the  Dedication  of  the  first  Temple  : 
and  above  all  in  the  Shechinah,  which  either  always  manifest, 
or  at  times  revealing  its  glory,  dwelt  between  the  Cherubim. 
The  Theophanies  of  the  old  Testament  were  types  of  the  Incar- 
nation. The  Sacrifices  of  the  Jewish  church  were  the  shadows 
of  the  one  Sacrifice  of  the  Cross.  If  the  Holy  Eucharist  be  the 
Christian  Sacrifice,  may  it  not  also  be  the  Christian  Theophany: 
and  as  much  demand  our  worship  of  the  Lord  Christ  there  pres- 
ent, as  the  Jewish  Theophanies  did  ? 

There  is  a  fourth  objection,  which  merely  to  mention  is  its 
refutation.  That  though  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  are 
really,  though  Spiritually,  present  in  Sacramental  union  with  the 
Holy  Elements,  they  are  present  as  slain,  and  so  do  not  involve 
the  Personal  Presence  of  the  Son  of  God. 

But  this  is  bare  Nestorianism.  When  Christ  lay  in  the 
grave,  in  the  tomb  of  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  His  Body  though 
dead,  because  It  continued  to  subsist  in  His  Divine  Person, 
was  still  an  object  of  worship.  His  Divine  Person  was  no  more 
separate  from.  His  Body  in  the  tomb  than  from  His  soul  in  Par- 
adise. Hence  they  who  follow  Archdeacon  Freeman  in  this 
view  of  his  own  invention,  generally  end  by  becoming  disciples 
of  his  disciple  Canon  Trevor,  who  declares  that  inasmuch  as 
Christ's  Body  and  Blood  as  slain  exist  nowheres  now  in  Heaven 
or  earth,  "  the  Divine  thing  in  the  Sacrament  is  neither  a  Di- 
vine Person  nor  a  Divine  substance,  but  a  Divine  quality,  (so  to 
speak)  imparted  to  the  bread  and  wine,  whereby  they  are  made 
the  Communion  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  the  Cross,  and 
through  these  of  the  glorified  Body."  He  adds,  and  herein  I 
cannot  agree  with  him,  "  This  is  no  rationalizing  interpreta- 
tion." [Pp.  72  and  73  Sacrifice  and  Participation  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist  by  Canon  Trevor.] 

I  must  venture  to  add  another  argument,  which  will  serve 
also  to  give  my  views  upon  the  important  question  of  the  Eu- 
charistic  Sacrifice. 


-20- 

There  is  nothing  clearer  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  or  more 
clearly  maintained  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  than  that 
Christ  "was  once  offered  to  bear  the  sins  of  many  j"  that  "by  one 
offering  He  hath  perfected  forever  them  that  are  sanctified;" 
that  there  is  "  no  more  offering  for  sin  ;"  that,  in  the  words  of 
the  Prayer  Book  our  Lord  made  upon  the  cross  "by  His  one 
oblation  of  Himself  once  offered,  a  full,  perfect  and  sufficient 
sacrifice,  oblation  and  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world."  On  the  other  hand,  while  the  singleness  and  sufficiency 
of  the  sacrifice  of  the  cross  is  thus  fully  declared,  the  perpetuity 
of  Christ's  Priesthood  is  as  carefully  revealed.  He  is  constituted 
a  Priest  after  the  "power  of  an  endless  life.'"  "  He  is  a  Priest 
forever,  after  the  order  of  Melchisedek."  He  hath  an  "  in- 
transmissible Priesthood,"  because  "He  continueth  ever. "  He  is 
"able  to  save  them  to  the  uttermost  that  come  unto  God  by 
Him,  seeing  He  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  them." 
*"This  Priesthood  of  Christ  then  being  perpetual,  yet  employing 
but  a  single  sacrificial  act,  must  consist  in  some  constant  and  en- 
during reference  to  that  one  Sacrifice.  The  Bible  tells  us  what 
this  is.  It  is  the  Presence  in  Heaven,  subsisting  in  the  Divine 
Person  of  The  Son  of  God,  of  the  Human  Nature  of  our  Lord 
Jesus.  After  His  Resurrection  His  glorified  Body  still  bore  the 
marks  of  the  Passion.  St.  Thomas  was  bidden  to  put  his  finger  into 
the  "print  of  the  nails,"  and  "to  thrust  his  hand  into  his  side." 
His  glorified  Body  cannot  admit  of  change.  It  must  be  now  as 
it  was  then.  Nay,  it  is  prophesied  of  It :  "They  shall  look  on 
Him  whom  they  have  pierced."  The  angels  of  God,  the  re- 
deemed in  Paradise,  and  all  living  creatures  from  highest  Sera- 
phim to  all  beneath  the  sea,  cry  aloud,  "Worthy  is  the  Lamb 
that  was  slain."  Nay,  when  the  rapt  apostle  was  describing  the 
aweful  vision  of  the  thrice  Holy  Trinity,  he  beheld,  and  "lo, 

in  the  midst  of  the  throne stood  a  "Lamb  as  it  had 

been  slain."  Not  as  a  Suppliant,  but  as  a  King  upon  His  Priest- 
ly throne,  the  Eternal  Son,  man  as  well  as  God,  presents  His 
human  nature  once  slain,  now  glorified,  as  our  ransom,  and  by  It 
pleads  for  our  pardon. 

No  devout  Churchman  will  deny  that  the  Priestly  work  of 
Christ  in  Heaven,  finds  its  counterpart  in  his  Earthly  Kingdom 

*Sec  Sermons  of  Archer  Butler,  ist  scries,  pp.  144  srnd  145. 


—21- 

in  the  various  ministrations  of  His  Church,  and  chiefly  in  the 
Holy  Eucharist.  "  It  is  a  memorial  before  God  of  the  one  Sac- 
rifice for  sins  forever. ' '  I  use  the  language  of  the  last  Pastoral 
of  the  House  of  Bishops.  We  "offer  these  holy  gifts  unto  God" 
that  "we  and  all  Thy  whole  Church  may  obtain  re- 
mission of  our  sins,  and  all  other  benefits  of  His  Passion,"  says 
the  Prayer  of  Consecration  in  the  Prayer  Book.  In  short,  it  is 
the  doing  in  the  Church  on  earth  what  our  Great  High  Priest 
does  for  us  in  Heaven.  The  acts  are  both  His  and  one. 

Since,  therefore,  the  Presence  of  Christ's  Human  Nature, 
once  slain,  now  glorified  in  Heaven,  is  the  constant  reference 
which  is  made  by  the  Risen  Lord  to  His  one  Sacrifice,  ought  we 
not  to  expect  a  Presence  of  that  same  human  nature,  so  far  as  it 
can  be  present,  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  in  Sacramental  union  with 
the  Holy  Elements.  There,  locally,  here,  sacramentally ;  there, 
after  the  manner  of  a  Body,  here,  after  the  manner  of  a  Spirit ,  yet 
in  both  really,  truly,  certainly,  the  one  and  selfsame  Humanity, 
the  same  Blessed  Person,  Sacrifice  and  Priest,  and  a  call  for  men 
on  earth,  and  the  Angels  in  Heaven,  and  the  redeemed  in  Para- 
dise, to  worship  and  adore  the  "Lamb  as  it  had  been  slain." 

And  if  anyone  says,  This  may  be  so,  but  what  proof  is  there 
of  it?  I  answer  again  in  the  words  of  Him  who  said,  "This  is  my 
Body  ;  this  is  my  Blood.  "  "Offer  this  for  my  own  memorial." 
"He  that  eateth  Me  even  he  shall  live  by  Me." 

No  doubt  there  are  other  objections  to  Eucharistic  adoration 
and  other  answers ;  the  question  is  admittedly  a  most  difficult 
one.  The  Church  I  believe  has  done  wisely  in  leaving  it  to  the 
faith  and  devotion  of  her  children.  But  if  she  does  not  say  they 
must  hold  it,  she  certainly  never  says  they  must  not  hold  it;  and 
teaches  authoritatively  a  doctrine  from  which  it  is  a  lawful  con- 
clusion. I  therefore  claim  for  myself  the  liberty  which  I  allow 
to  others. 

I  come  now  to  the  proof  that  she  has  allowed  the  doctrine 
to  be  held. 

Bishop  Andrewes  is  confessedly  one  of  the  greatest,  if  not 
the  greatest  Divine  of  the  Church  of  England.  One  of  the 
Translators  of  the  Bible,  he  added  to  marvelous  learning  and  un- 
equalled eloquence  a  devotion  which  has  made  his  Prayers  ever 


-22- 

since,  one  of  the  Church's  best  possessions.  Cardinal  Bellarmine, 
the  ablest  controversalist  of  that  age  upon  the  Roman  side,  in 
Europe,  had  attacked  his  Sovereign  King  James  the  first.  Bishop 
Andrewes,  then  Bishop  of  Ely,  was  put  forth  to  defend  the  King. 
In  his  reply  to  Cardinal  Bellarmine  he  stands  forth  as  the  cham- 
pion of  his  church  and  King,  and  though  two  hundred  and  fifty 
years  have  passed,  the  Church  has  never  repudiated  his  noble  ar- 
guments. To  be  sure  he  was  carped  at  in  his  day  also.  In  a 
memoir  of  Bishop  Andrewes  published  by  Sir  John  Harrington, 
in  1653,  it  is  said  that  being  appointed  to  that  Prebendship  in  St. 
Paul's,  the  holder  of  which  was  called  the  Confessor,  "  his  man- 
ner was,  especially  in  Lent  time,  to  walk  duly  at  certain  hours  in 
one  of  the  aisles  of  the  Church,  that  if  any  came  to  him  for 
spiritual  advice  and  comfort,  (as  some  did  though  not  many)  he 
might  impart  it  to  them.  This  custom  being  agreeable  to  the 
Scripture  and  Fathers,  not  repugning  the  xxxix  articles  and  re- 
quired in  some  sort  in  the  Communion  Book,  and  no  less  ap- 
proved by  Calvin  in  his  Institutions,  yet  was  quarrelled  with 
as  a  point  of  Popery.  The  like  scandal  was  taken  of  some, 
though  not  given  by  him,  for  his  reverent  speaking  of  the  high- 
est mystery  of  our  faith  and  heavenly  food,  the  Lord's  Supper, 
which  some  are  so  stiff  in  their  knees,  or  rather  in  their  hearts, 
that  they  hold  it  idolatry  to  receive  it  kneeling.  But  whatsoever 
such  barked  at,  he  ever  kept  one  tenor  of  life  and  doctrine,  ex- 
emplary and  unreprovable."  [pp.  xxxvi  and  xxxvii  of  Life  of 
Bishop  Andrewes  in  Angl.  Cath.  Lib.]  And  this  Judgement  of 
him  the  voice  ot  the  Anglican  Communion  has  ever  approved.* 
I  give  a  quotation  from  his  Reply  to  Cardinal  Bellarmine.  The 
words  of  the  Cardinal  are  placed  in  brackets  and  the  replies  of 
the  Bishop  follow.  [Lib.  of  Angl.  Cath  Theol.  Resp.  ad.  Bell, 
pp.  264,  265,  266  and  267.] 

["  I  will  also  adduce  one  writer,  who  bears  the  name  of  S.  Cyprian, 
hut  who,  though  not  the  very  celebrated  martyr  Cyprian,  is  yet  of  very  an- 
cient and  weighty  authority  ..."  The  bread  being  changed,  not  in  form, 
but  in  nature,  by  the  omnipotence  of  the  word,  became  flesh"  ....  He 
says,  that  the  nature,  that  is,  the  substance,  is  changed  ;  and  that  the  form, 
that  is,  the  accidents,  are  not  changed."]  [Bell.  Apol.  pro  Resp.  p.  107. 
Op.  torn.  vii.  col.  764,  C.  D.] 

*For  a  reply  to  the  Churchman  of  Feb.  jth,  impugning  Bishop  Andrewes.     See  appendix  iii. 


—23- 

"  Now  that  weighty  author  (who  bears  the  name  of  Cyprian  and  yet  is 
not  Cyprian)  says  that  the  bread  is  changed  in  nature,  not  in  form  ;  and  this  is 
not  denied  by  us  either.  But  we  nevertheless  deprecate  the  interpretation  of 
the  Cardinal,  "  nature,  that  is,  substance  ;  and  form,  that  is,  accidents."  For 
what  that  author  says  is,  that  by  the  addition  of  the  omnipotence  of  the  word, 
the  nature  is  changed,  so  that  what  was  before  a  mere  element,  becomes  now 
;i  Divine  Sacrament,  while  nevertheless  the  previously  existing  substance 
still  remains.  This  is  shown  by  the  words  which  immediately  follow  ;  they 
being  both  part  of  the  same  passage,  and  always  by  you  fraudulently  left  out, 
namely,  "  And  just  as  in  the  person  of  Christ  the  humanity  was  seen  and 
the  divinity  was  hidden ;  so  the  Divine  essence  infused  itself  into  the  visible 
Sacrament ;"  meaning  doubtless  that  the  union  between  the  visible  Sacrament, 
and  the  invisible  inward  part  of  the  Sacrament  is  the  same -as  that  which  ex- 
ists between  the  humanity  and  the  Divinity  of  Christ ;  where,  unless  you 
mean  to  be  a  Eutychian,  the  humanity  is  not  transubstantiated  into  the  divin- 
ity. But,  that  you  may  know  that  the  word  "  nature"  is  not  to  be  understood 
as  meaning  "  substance"  in  that  passage  where  Peter  says,  "  that  we  are  made 
partakers  of,  the  divine  nature,"  that  same  author  (and  in  the  same  passage 
too)  denies  that  this  kind  of  unity  is  equivalent  to  a  consubstantiality  with 
Christ.  Substance,  therefore  the  Cardinal  finds  nowhere  asserted,  while  we 
find  it  denied.  Theodoret  says,  "  For  the  symbols  remain  in  their  former 
substance."  Moreover  Gelasius,  Pontifex  and  Chief  Pastor,  to  whose  words 
all  Papists  must  listen,  says  that  the  symbols  "  by  the  operation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  pass  over  into  the  divine  substance  (wherefore  I  marvel  that  this  writer 
is  omitted  by  the  Cardinal),  and  yet  that  the  substance  or  nature  of  the  bread 
and  wine  does  not  cease  to  exist."  Moreover,  in  order  more  clearly  to  indi- 
cate to  us  his  meaning,  he  adds  these  words  "  Just  as  Christ  (says  he),  being 
One,  consists  of  natures  separately  remaining."  Both,  Gelasius  as  well  as 
Theodoret,  contradict  Eutyches.  Hence  it  is  clearly  manifest  that  the  trans- 
mutation which  takes  place  in  the  Sacrament,  is  not  one  of  substance.  I 
quote  also  the  following  words  of  Augustine  :  "  This  is  what  we  assert,  and 
what  we  claim  in  every  manner  to  prove,  namely  that  the  Sacrafice  of  the 
Eucharist  consists  of  two  things,  the  visible  species  of  the  elements,  and  the 
invisible  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ  (the  Sacrament  and  the  inward  part  of  the 
Sacrament) ;  just  as  the  person  of  Christ  consists  and  is  composed  of  God 
and  Man,  since  Christ  Himself  is  very  God  and  very  Man.  Because  every- 
thing contains  in  itself  the  nature  and  verity  of  those  things  of  which  it  is  com- 
posed. Moreover  the  Sacrament  of  the  Church  is  composed  of  two  things,  the 
Sacrament  and  the  inward  part  of  the  Sacrament,  that  is,  the  body  of  Christ." 

[He  classes  as  a  novel  and  recent  dogma  the  Adoration  of  the  Sacrament 
of  the  Eucharist,  that  is,  the  Adoration  of  the  Lord  Christ,  wonderfully  but 
truly  present  in  the  Sacrament.]  [Bell.  Apol.  pro  Resp.  p.  107.  Op.  toin- 
vii.  col.  764  D.] 

In  the  phrase  "  Adoration  of  the  Sacrament "  he  disgracefully  stumbles 


—24- 

upon  the  very  threshold,  "of  the  Sacrament,  he  says,  that  is,  of  the  Lord  Christ 
wonderfully  but  truly  present  in  the  Sacrament."  But  away  with  it !  Who 
would  grant  him  this  ?  "  Of  the  Sacrament,  that  is,  of  Christ  in  the  Sacra- 
ment?" \t.  e.  that  the  Sacrament  and  Christ  in  the  Sacrament  are  the  same.] 
"  Nay,  rather  Christ  Himself,  the  inward  part  of  the  Sacrament  [res  Sacra- 
menti.]  in  and  with  the  Sacrament,  [Sacramentum]  apart  from  and  without 
the  Sacrament,  wherever  He  is,  is  to  be  adored.  Now  the  King  maintained 
that  Christ  truly  present  in  the  Eucharist,  was  also  truly  to  be  adored ;  that  is 
to  say,  the  inward  part  of  the  Sacrament ;  but  not  the  Sacrament,  that  is  to  say, 
the  earthly  part,  according  to  Irenaeus ;  the  visible  part,  according  to  Au- 
gustine." 

[S.  Ambrose  says  ....  "  We  adore  the  flesh  of  Christ  in  the  myste- 
ries" .  .  .  S.  Gregory,  Nazian.  .  .  .  commending  the  piety  of  Gorgoria,  thus 
writes  ..."  Beseeching  Him  who  is  worshipped  upon  the  altar".  .  .  Now 
what  that  which  is  worshipped  upon  the  altar,  S.  Optatus  of  Mileum  shows, 
who  in  his  third  book  against  Parmenianus  calls  the  altar  the  resting  place 
of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.  Augustine  says  .  .  .  No  one  eats  unless 
he  has  first  adored."  [Bell.  "Apol.  pro  Resp.  pp  107  and  108,  Op.  torn.  vii. 
col.  765.  A.  B.] 

But  we  indeed  also,  with  Ambrose,  adore  the  flesh  of  Christ  in  the 
mysteries,  and  not,  "that"  but  "Him"  who  is  worshipped  upon  the  altar. 
For  the  Cardinal  improperly  asks  "What  is  worshipped  there"  when  he  should 
have  asked  "  Who"  since  he  of  Nazianzum  says  "  Him"  not  "  that."  And 
neither  do  we,  with  Augustine,  eat  the  flesh  without  first  adoring.  And  yet 
we  by  ao  means  adore  the  Sacrament.  [Sacramentum.] 

I  give  next  the  following  quotations  from  Herbert  Thorn  - 
dike's  "Laws  of  the  Church."  Born  in  1598,  he  was  28  years 
of  age  when  Bishop  Andrewes  died.  As  a  student  at  Cambridge 
University  he  belonged  to  the  Diocese  of  Ely,  while  Bishop 
Andrewes  was  its  Bishop,  and  it  was  in  the  first  year  of  his  stu- 
dentship there,  that  Bishop  Andrewes  attended  King  James  in  a 
visit  to  the  great  University.  It  was  during  the  great  Rebellion 
that  he  was  chosen  for  his  knowledge  ofSyriac,  to  assist  in  one  of 
the  noblest  enterprises  of  English  theological  scholarship,  the 
publication  of  Walton's  Polyglot.  It  was  during  the  same  period 
that  he  wrote  the  remarkable  book  from  which  the  following  ex- 
tract is  taken.  But  I  need  say  no  more  about  him,  than  that 
Bishop  Bull  calls  him  the"  Blessed  :" 

"  But  I  suppose,  further,  that  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  is  not  adored, 
nor  to  be  adored  by  Christians,  neither  for  Itself,  nor  for  any  endowment  resid- 
ing in  It,  which  It  may  have  received  by  being  personally  united  with  the 
Godhead  of  Christ ;  but  only  in  consideration  of  the  said  Godhead,  to  which  It 


—25- 

remains  inseparably  united,  wheresoever  It  becomes.  For  by  that  means,  who- 
soever proposeth  not  to  himself  the  consideration  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ,  as  It  is  of  Itself  and  in  Itself  a  mere  creature  (which  he,  that  doth  not 
on  purpose,  cannot  do)  cannot  but  consider  It,  as  he  believes  It  to  be,  being  a 
Christian ;  and  considering  It  as  It  is,  honour  It  as  It  is  inseparably  united  to 
the  Godhead,  in  which  and  by  which  It  subsisteth ;  in  which,  therefore,  that 
honour  resteth,  and  to  which  it  tendeth.  So  the  Godhead  of  Christ  is  a  thing 
that  is  honoured,  and  the  reason  why  it  is  honoured,  both :  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ,  though  It  be  necessarily  honoured,  because  necessarily  united 
to  that  which  is  honoured ;  yet  is  It  only  the  thing  that  is  honoured  and  not  the 
reason  why  It  is  honoured,  speaking  of  the  honour  proper  to  God  alone." 
[Vol.  iv.  p.  754.  Angl.  Cath.  Lib.] 

"  And  is  not  the  presence  thereof  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist  a  just 
occasion,  presently  to  express  by  the  bodily  act  of  adoration  that  inward  honour 
which  we  always  carry  towards  our  Lord  Christ  as  God  ?"  [P.  754.]  .... 

"Here  then  you  see  I  am  utterly  disobliged  to  dispute,  whether  or  no  in 
the  ancient  Church  Christians  were  exhorted  and  encouraged  to,  and  really 
did,  worship  our  Lord  Christ  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist.  For  having 
concluded  my  intent,  that  it  had  not  been  idolatry  had  it  been  done,  I  might 
leave  the  consequence  of  it  to  debate.  But  not  to  balk  the  freedom  which  hath 
carried  me  to  publish  all  this,  I  do  believe  that  it  was  so  practised  and  done  in 
the  ancient  Church,  which  I  maintain  from  the  beginning  to  have  been  the 
true  Church  of  Christ,  obliging  all  to  conf  orm  to  it  in  all  things  within  the 
power  of  it.  I  know  the  consequence  to  be  this,  that  there  is  no  good  cause 
why  it  should  not  be  done  at  present,  but  that  cause  which  justifies  the  reform- 
ing of  some  part  of  the  Church  without  the  whole ;  which,  if  it  were  taken 
away,  that  it  might  be  done  again,  and  ought  not  to  be  of  itself  alone  any 
cause  of  distance." 

"  For  I  do  acknowledge  the  testimonies  that  are  produced  out  of  S. 
Ambrose,  Z)*'  Spiritu  Sancto,i\\.  12;  S.Augustine,  in  Psalm,  xcviii.,  and 
Epist.  cxx.  cap.  xxvii.;  S.  Chrysostom,  ffomil,  xxiv,  in  I  ad  Corinth  ; 
Theodoret,  Dial,  ii.;  S.  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Oral,  in  S.  Gorgoniam  ;  S.  Jer- 
ome, Epist,  ad  Theophilum  Episc.  Alexandriae ;  Origen,  In  diversa  loca 
Evang,,  Horn,  v.,  where  he  teacheth  lo  say  at  the  receiving  the  Sacrament, 
'  Lord,  I  am  not  worthy  that  Thou  shouldst  come  under  my  roof,'  which  to  say 
is  to  do  that  which  I  conclude.  Nor  do  I  need  more  to  conclude  it." 

"And  what  reason  can  I  have  not  to  conclude  it  ?  Have  I  supposed  the 
elements,  which  are  God's  creatures,  in  which  the  sacrament  is  celebrated,  to 
be  abolished ;  or  anything  else,  concerning  the  Flesh  and  Blood  of  Christ, 
or  the  presence  thereof  in  the  Eucharist,  in  giving  a  reason  why  the  Church 
may  do  it,  which  the  Church  did  not  believe  ?  If  I  have,  I  disclaim  it  as  soon 
as  it  may  appear  to  me  for  such.  Nay,  I  do  expressly  warn  all  opinions, 
that  they  imagine  not  to  themselves  the  Eucharist  so  mere  and  simple  a  sign 
of  the  thing  signified,  that  the  celebration  thereof  should  not  be  a  competent 


—26- 

occasion/or  the  executing  of  that  worship,  which  is  a/ways  due  to  our   Lord 
Christ  incarnate. 

"I  confess  it  is  not  necessarily  the  same  thing  to  worship  Christ  in  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist,  as  to  worship  the  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist,  yet 
in  that  sense  which  reason  of  itself  justifieth,  it  is.  For  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Eucharist,  by  reason  of  the  nature  thereof,  is  neither  the  visible  kind,  nor 
the  invisible  grace,  of  Christ's  Body  and  Blood,  but  the  union  of  both  by  virtue 
of  the  premises ;  in  regard  whereof  the  one  going  along  with  the  other,  what- 
soever be  the  distance  of  their  nature,  both  concur  to  that,  which  we  call  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist,  by  the  work  of  God,  to  which  He  is  morally  en- 
gaged by  the  promise  which  the  institution  thereof  contained!.  If  this  be 
rightly  understood,  to  worship  the  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist  is  to  worship 
Christ  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist." — (pp.  755-757.  vo1-  iv»  Ang!- 
Cath.  Lib.) 

My  next  quotation  is  taken  from  the  "Considerationes  Mod- 
estae"  of  Bishop  William  Forbes  of  Edinburgh,  who  died  in  1634. 
This  work  was  transcribed  by  the  great  Bishop  Cosin  : 

"  As  regards  the  adoration  of  this  Sacrament,  since  "  he  who  worthily 
receives  the  sacred  symbols,  truly  and  really  receives  into  himself  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ,  corporeally,  yet  in  a  certain  spiritual,  miraculous,  and 
imperceptible  manner,  everyone  who  worthily  communicates  can  and  ought  to 
adore  the  Body  of  Christ  which  he  receives ;  not  because  it  is  hid  corporeally 
in  the  bread,  or  under  the  bread,  or  under  the  species  and  accidents  of  bread  : 
but  because,  when  the  sacramental  bread  is  worthily  received,  then  along  with 
the  bread,  the  real  Body  of  Christ,  which  is  really  present  in  that  communion , 
is  also  received,"  as  the  Archbishop  of  Spalatro  says.  "We  adore  the  Flesh  of 
Christ  in  the  mysteries;'  says  S.  Ambrose;  S.  Gregory  Nazianzen,  "Calling 
upon  Him  who  is  worshipped  upon  the  altar,"  S.  Augustine — "No  one  eateth 
that  Flesh  (viz.;  that  of  Christ,)  till  he  have  first  adored."  See  S.  Chrysostom 
in  several  parts  of  his  writings.  The  rest  of  the  ancients  agree. 

"  Enormous  is  the  error  of  the  more  rigid  Protestants  who  deny  that 
Christ  is  to  be  adored  in  the  Eucharist,  save  with  an  internal  and  mental 
adoration,  but  not  with  any  outward  rite  of  worship,  as  by  kneeling,  or  some 
other  similar  position  of  the  body.  They  with  few  exceptions  hold  wrong 
views  concerning  the  presence  of  Christ  the  Lord  in  the  Sacrament,  who  is 
present  in  a  wonderful  but  true  manner."  [Lib.  of  Ang.  Cath.  Theol.,  vol  ii, 

P-  545  ] 

"As  regards  the  first  assertion  of  Bellarmine  about  venerating  the  sym- 
bols with  a  kind  of  lesser  reverence,  we  admit  it ;  but  what  he  says  of  the 
adoration  of  latria,  that  though  per  se  and  properly  it  be  due  and  exhibited  to 
Christ,  yet  it  belongs  also  to  the  symbols,  in  so  far  as  they  are  apprehended  as 
one,  in  a  certain  respect  with  Christ  Himself  Whom  they  contain,  and  to 
Whom  they  are  a  covering  and  concealment,  like  garments ;  is  false  and  re- 


-27- 

pugnant  to  the  opinion  of  very  many  others.  For  these  species  do  not  belong 
to  the  person  of  Christ  nor  do  they  make  one  with  It.  Whence  he  himself 
a  little  while  after  doubtingly  says  :  "Whatever  there  may  be  said  of  the  ex- 
pressions used,  the  state  of  the  question  simply  is.  whether  Christ  in  the  Eu- 
charist is  to  be  adored  with  the  worship  of  latria."  But  this  the  more  sound 
Protestants  do  not  doubt ;  "for  in  the  reception  of  the  Eucharist,"  to  use  the 
words  of  the  Archbishop  of  Spalatro,  "Christ  is  to  be  adored  with  true  latria, 
since  His  living  and  glorious  Body  is  present  to  the  worthy  receiver  by  a  cer- 
tain inexplicable  miracle ;  and  this  adoration  is  due  and  is  paid,  not  to  the 
bread,  not  to  the  wine,  not  to  the  participation,  not  to  the  eating,  not  to  the 
sign,  but  immediately  to  Christ's  Body  itself,  .exhibited  through  the  partaking 
of  the  Eucharist."  [page  551.] 

I  give  these  extracts,  Mr.  President,  not  as  though  they  were 
all  which  could  be  given,  but  as  sufficient  to  show  that  the  doc- 
trine of  Eucharistical  adoration  has  been  allowed  in  the  Church 
of  England.  Is  any  one  here  prepared  to  say  that  such  men  as 
Andrewes,  Bishop  Forbes  of  Edinburgh,  and  Thorndike,  whose 
lives  covered  almost  the  whole  period  from  the  Reformation  to 
the  fatal  day,  when  the  accession  of  William  and  Mary,  drove  out 
the  piety  and  holiness  of  Sancroft  and  Ken  ;  that  in  our  own  time 
the  saintly  Bishop  Hamilton  of  Salisbury,  and  John  Keble,  the 
author  of  the  Christian  Year,  who  are  at  rest  with  God  ;  and  the 
Bishop  of  Brechin,  Dr.  Pusey,  and  Canon  Liddon,  who  still  fight 
the  good  fight,  are  disloyal  to  the  Church  of  their  Baptism. 

But  surely  all  this  is  scarcely  necessary,  at  least  so  far  as  my 
six  accusers  are  concerned,  when  I  am  able  to  quote  in  my  be- 
half even  Dr.  Adams  himself.  Immediately  after  my  last  speech 
in  the  General  Convention  of  1871,  Dr.  Adams  said:  [p.  513  of 
Debates.] 

"  Now  I  wish  to  say  that  upon  this  matter  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  the 
question  is  the  most  dubious  and  the  most  debated  matter  in  Europe  for  a 
thousand  years.  The  doctrine  which  Dr.  De  Koven  holds,  I  believe,  is  the 
same  as  that  of  Dr.  Pusey.  It  is  identical,  more  or  less,  with  the  old  doctrine 
of  consubstantiation.  I  do  not  wish  the  clergy  and  laity  in  this  House  to  get 
scared  and  talk  about  a  difficult  question,  and  get  into  an  excitement  and  im- 
agine that  Dr.  De  Koven  is  coming  here  and  speaking  heresy.  Dr.  De 
Koven — 

The  President :  You  will  please  speak  of  your  colleague  as  your  colleague, 
and  not  mention  his  name. 

Dr.  Adams  :  I  beg  pardon.  My  colleague  is  not  a  heretic  in  any  shape 
or  form.  He  holds  a  doctrine  which  is  tolerated  in  the  Church,  as  every 
other  doctrine,  except  Zwinglianism,  is"  etc. 


—28— 

It  must  be  noted  that  Dr.  Adams  does  not  venture  to  accuse 
me  of  holding  Consutfstantiation.  He  says  it  is  identical,  "more 
or  less,"  with  that  doctrine.  He,  however,  asserts  that  it  is  a 
doctrine  to  be  tolerated. 

I  quote  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Adams  knowing  that  it  was  an 
unwilling  testimony.  He  follows  up  this  admission  by  charging 
me  with  being  "a.  shrewd  and  able  party  leader."  (Page  513  of 
Debates.)  He  knew  well  that  whatever  force  there  was  in  my 
argument  before  the  Convention,  was  due  to  its  sincerity* — If  the 
confidence  of  the  Church  could  be  shaken  in  this,  all  else  would 
be  of  no  avail.'  This  too  has  been  the  motive  of  the  attacks  of 
the  Church  Journal,  viz.,  the  endeavour  to  show  what  cannot  be 
proved  by  any  action  of  my  life,  that  I  am  not  one  contending 
for  great  truths,  but  the  leader  of  a  party.  I  quote  the  words, 
however,  because,  though  like  Balaam  Dr.  Adams  intended  to 
harm,  like  Balaam  he  was  constrained  to  bless. 

Let  me  add  for  myself,  that  I  believe  our  Church  tolerates  cer- 
tain views  of  the  Eucharist,  which  may  fall  short  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Real  objective  Presence,  and  which  are  not  Zwinglian.  I  do 
not  say  this,  however,  in  the  interests  of  Latitudinarianism.  As 
Sir  Robert  Phillimore  expresses  it  in  his  "Judgement :"  "The  ob- 
jective, actual  and  Real  Presence,  or  the  spiritual  Real  Presence, 
a  Presence  external  to  the  act  of  the  communicant,  appears  to 
me  to  be  the  doctrine  which  the  Formularies  of  our  Church, 
duly  considered  and  construed  so  as  to  be  harmonious,  intended 
to  maintain."  But  while  she  distinctly  asserts  this,  and  main- 
tains it  against  Transubstantiation  on  the  one  side,  and  Zwin- 
glianism  on  the  other,  and  is  thus  at  one  with  the  Catholic 
Church,  for  twelve  hundred  years;  with  that  broad  hearted 
spirit,  which  distinguishes  her  from  a  sect,  she  tolerates  some 
feebler  views.  She  does  so,  however,  because  so  far  as  they  go 
they  are  true — imperfect  views,  it  may  be,  but  still  the  truth  of 
God. 

E,  g.  The  Holy  Eucharist  is  a  commemoration, — but  not  a 
mere  commemoration. 

The  Holy  Eucharist  is  made  what  it  is  by  the  Presence  of 
God's  Holy  Spirit ;  and  brings  in  it  His  Blessed  grace, — but  it 
has  in  it  also  a  specific  gift. 


-29- 

The  Holy  Eucharist  has  in  it  virtually  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ, — because  it  has  them  really. 

The  faithful  recipient  is  indeed  a  partaker  of  Christ.  "Christ 
dwells  in  him,  and  he  in  Christ," — because  Christ  is  present  be- 
fore reception  to  give  Himself. 

One  thing  more  I  must  say  in  the  interests  of  the  Church  at 
large.  There  seems  to  be  a  notion  prevailing  that  such  a  doc- 
trine as  that  of  Eucharistical  adoration  may  be  tolerated  in  a  Pres- 
byter, but  is  somehow  a  proper  reason  for  refusing  to  such  a  per- 
son preferment  or  office,  for  which  in  other  respects  he  may 
be  fitted. 

But  such  an  idea  will  not  bear  a  moments  examination.  Has  our 
Church  one  set  of  doctrines  she  allows  to  Deacons,  another  to  Pres- 
byters, and  another  to  Bishops  ?  May  one  like  myself,  who  has 
had  a  thousand  or  more  of  boys  and  young  men  under  his  charge, 
some  thirty  of  whom  are  now  either  in  the  Holy  ministry  or  pre- 
paring for  it,  and  nearly  four  hundred  of  whom  have  been  pre- 
pared by  him  for  confirmation  and  first  communion,  be  allowed 
to  maintain  doctrines  some  one  else  may  not  ?  If  it  be  so,  will 
some  one  of  these,  my  accusers,  tell  us  just  what  the  doctrine  of 
the  Eucharist  is,  which  will  fit  a  man  for  preferment  ?  Let  us 
know  what  Shibboleth  the  ambitious  mouth  must  pronounce. 
Nay,  I  will  venture  to  make  to  them  a  profitable  suggestion. 
There  are  varying  views  and  tolerated  opinions  on  other  subjects 
besides  the  Eucharist.  Let  them  compile  a  Treatise.  Let  them 
teach  those  who  wish  to  learn,  the  exact  doctrinal  steps  which 
lead  safely  on.  To  be  sure  from  time  to  time  revised  editions 
will  need  to  be  published,  as  the  theological  barometer  goes  up 
or  down.  The  same  rule  would  scarce  admit  Bishop  Hobart 
and  Bishop  Meade  :  Bishop  Alonzo  Potter  and  Bishop  De  Lan- 
cey ;  Bishop  Mcllvaine  and  Bishop  Doane  of  New  Jersey. 
Nay,  for  a  book  so  important,  I  am  tempted  even  to  give  sug- 
gestions for  the  binding.  Bind  it  not,  O,  my  friends,  in  russia, 
lest  it  seem  to  be  too  friendly  to  the  Greek  Church.  As  it  is  to 
be  a  book  for  the  use  of  shepherds,  beware  of  the  sad  suggestion 
of  sheep  skin.  Let  it  be  sent  forth  in  boards;  then  will  it  be  pur- 
chased by  that  party  which  our  Fathers  knew  not,  which  is 
neither  high,  nor  low,  nor  broad,  but  pre-eminently  what  may  be 


-30- 

called  hard  Church.  And  when  the  work  is  done,  if  it  be  ac- 
cepted, Mr.  President,  farewell  to  the  brave  old  days  and  the 
brave  old  men,  out  of  whose  differences  often  came  the  higher 
truth  ;  farewell  to  high-toned  earnestness  and  straight  forward 
independence,  and  to  the  grand  heritage  of  toleration  of  our 
Mother  Church. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I  have,  as  fully  as  the  circumstances 
admit  of,  stated  the  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  which  I  hold. 
So  far  as  this  document  has  not  misrepresented  it,  1  have  no  fault 
to  find.  I  come  now  to  its 


as  found  in  the  following  paragraph. 

"  Still  it  may  be  argued,  on  behalf  of  Dr.  DeKoven  and  the  ritualists, 
that  this  is  merely  a  speculative  opinion,  especially  as  the  Dr.  explicitly  dis- 
avows a  belief  in  Transubstantiation.  But  unfortunately  the  practical  results 
of  this  belief,  are  identical  with  the  practical  results  of  Transubstantiation, 
and  the  difference  is  merely  speculative  and  nugatory  as  between  his  belief 
and  that  of  the  church  of  Rome.  For  the  acts  of  adoration  addressed  to  the 
Presence  in  the  Elements  on  the  Altar,  are  precisely  those  addressed  by  the 
members  of  the  Church  of  Rome  to  the  Host,  and  none  other.  This  locali- 
zation of  the  Presence,  implies  an  arrangement  of  the  service,  with  lights,  vest- 
ments, prostrations,  non-communicant  adorations,  a  reserved  Sacrament,  pro- 
cessions of  Corpus  Christi,  and  all  other  incidents  with  which  the  attendants  on 
Roman  Catholic  worship  are  familiar,  and  which  are  foreign  to  our  own  "use." 
It  implies  an  offering  of  Christ  by  the  Priest  for  the  living  and  the  dead — it 
implies  in  every  respect,  what  the  ritualists  call  it,  the  Mass,  and  not  the 
Holy  Communion."  [Principles,  not  Men.] 

At  first  sight,  my  brethren,  you  will  scarcely  understand  the 
full  force  of  this  paragraph.     Let  me  review  my  argument : 

1.  I  have  shown  that  the  great  divines  of   the   Church  of 
England,  in  exact  accordance  with  the  Prayer  Book,   teach  the 
doctrine  of  the  real  objective  Presence. 

2.  That  it  is  a  logical  and  devotional  result  of  that  doctrine 
that  Christ  our  Lord,  present  in  Sacramental  union  with  the  Holy 
Elements,  is  to  be  adored. 

3.  That  the  Church,  however,  has  never  commanded  Euchar- 
istical  adoration    in  any   specific  doctrinal  formula,    or  by  any 
other  ritual  expression   than   the  command  to  kneel  when  her 
children  receive. 


—31— 

4.  Believing,  in  Eucharistical  adoration,  it  is  therefore  neces- 
sary, and  my  duty  to  teach  it,  in  the  same  measure  and  to  the 
same  degree  as  the  Church  has  permitted  it  to  be  taught. 

But  there  are  two  methods  of  teaching,  one  by  word  of 
mouth,  another  by  ritual.  I  suppose  many  of  the  objections 
against  believing  and  teaching  Eucharistical  adoration,  which  have 
been  of  late  in  the  mouths  of  men,  have  been  intended  against 
the  latter.  No  one  could  forbid  a  man  to  believe  or  to  teach  that 
Christ  in  the  Eucharist  is  to  be  adored  with  afls  of  mental  adoration. 
To  show  this  clearly,  one  has  only  to  state  the  fact  that  the  Judicial 
Committee  of  the  Privy  Conncil  gave  it  as  one  reason  for  the  ac- 
quittal of  Mr.  Bennett  from  the  charge  of  unlawful  adoration,  that 
"Some  of  their  Lordships  have  doubted  whether  the  word  'adore,' 
though  it  seems  to  point  rather  to  acts  of  worship,  such  as  are 
forbidden  by  the  28th  Article,  may  not  be  construed  to  refer  to 
mental  adoration,  or  prayers  addressed  to  Christ  present  spiritu- 
ally in  the  Sacrament,  which  does  not  necessarily  imply  any  adora- 
tion <jf  the  consecrated  elements  or  of  any  corporal  or  natural  pres 
ence  therein"  [Judgement  of  Judicial  Committee  in  the  case  of 
Shepard  vs.  Bennett,  p  302  of  Mr.  Stephen's  Argument,  &c.] 

I  beg,  Mr.  President,  your  especial  attention  to  this  grave  dis- 
tinction, well  known  to  all  who  have  thought  upon  the  subject, 
between  acts  of  mental  adoration,  the  out-pouring  of  the  heart, 
and  acts  of  ritual  adoration,  which  might  be  supposed  to  mean 
and  teach  much  more  than  the  adoration  of  Christ  present  in 
Sacramental  Union  with  the  Holy  Elements. 

It  might  be  '  'necessary  and  my  duty' '  to  do  and  teach  the  for- 
mer, it  might  not  "be  necessary  or  my  duty"  to  do  and  teach 
the  latter.  But  in  order  to  condemn  me  it  was  necessary  to  show 
that  I  practised  not  simply  mental  adoration  but  ritual  adoration  ; 
and  hence  this  paragraph. 

Fully  to  investigate  the  accusation  and  to  explain  its  grievous 
wrong,  allow  me  to  arrange  these  various  sorts  of  ritual  in  three 
divisions. 

1.  "  Lights  and  vestments." 

2.  "  Incense  and  Prostrations." 

3.  "  A  reserved    Sacrament"    (for    purposes   of  worship.) 
"Processions  of  Corpus  Christi."     "All  other   incidents  with 


-32- 

which  the  attendants  upon  Roman  Catholic  worship  are  fam- 
iliar ;"  including  I  suppose  the  Benediction  of  the  Blessed  Sacra- 
ment. The  forty  hours  Exposition  &c.,  &c. 

I  classify  them  in  this  way  to  show  the  skill  with  which  the 
paragraph  is  framed.  Those  under  the  third  class  alone  are  dis- 
tinctly Roman.  The  Lutherans  who  certainly  are  Protestant 
enough  have  both  lights  and  vestments.  The  Greek  Church 
and  the  Communions  who  have  separated  from  it,  the  Nestorian 
and  Jacobite  Churches,  have  Lights,  Vestments,  Incense  and 
Prostrations.  The  Lutheran  church  holds  the  doctrine  known  as 
Consubstantiation.  The  Greek  Church  holds  the  Catholic  faith 
of  all  ages  as  to  the  Eucharist.  Accused  as  she  is  sometimes  of 
holding  Transubstantiation,  it  can  only  be  said  of  her,  that  she 
uses  the  term  ' '  metousiosis, "  but  denies  that  it  is  to  be  taken  to 
define  the  manner  in  which  the  bread  and  wine  are  changed  into 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  our  Lord.  [Neale's  Int.  to  Hist,  of  the 
Holy  E.  Ch.  p.  1173  note.]  One  would  reasonably  argue  there- 
fore that  these  four  things  were  not  necessarily  the  ritual  of 
Transubstantiation.  There  is  proof,  however,  on  the  matter  which 
to  a  member  of  the  Anglican  Communion  is  absolutely  unan- 
swerable. 

The  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  was  imposed  upon 
the  Western  Church  by  the  fourth  Lateran  council  A.  D.  1215. 
The  great  Anglican  Theologians  prove  most  conclusively  that 
this  doctrine  was  a  new  one  and  cannot  be  proved  by  Scripture 
or  the  Fathers.  Lights,  Incense,  and  Vestments  date  back  at  least 
to  the  5th  century  and  probably  to  a  far  earlier  period.  I  take 
the  latest  date.  The  Jacobite  and  Nestorian  Communions  sepa- 
rated from  the  Eastern  Church  in  that  century,  and  probably 
have  not  since  changed  their  usages.  Both  the  orthodox  Com- 
munions and  these  heretical  bodies  had  them  then,  and  retain 
them  still.  The  use  of  them  is  seven  hundred  years  and  more 
older  than  Transubstantiation.  Now  mark  the  argument.  If 
they  be  necessarily  the  ritual  of  Transubstantiation,  all  the  argu- 
ments of  our  Theologians  go  for  nothing,  and  the  doctrine  in- 
stead of  being  a  corruption  of  the  middle  ages  is  at  least  as  old 
as  the  age  of  the  undisputed  General  Councils.  So  do  these 
gentlemen  in  their  eager  zeal  play  into  the  hands  of  Rome. 


—33— 

Holding  this  view,  namely,  that  they  are  not  necessarily  the 
ritual  of  Transubstantiation,  but  simply  the  ritual  of  the  Real 
Presence,  I  have  been  the  Pastor  of  a  College  Chapel.  In 
such  a  service  large  liberties  have  always  been  allowed.  The 
Rev.  Dr.  Kemper  might  have  taken  in  the  savour  of  incense,  and 
I  know  not  what  besides,  in  his  boyhood  at  Dr.  Muhlenberg's 
famous  School  at  College  Point.  Nay  the  chapel  of  Racine  Col- 
lege has  never  been  consecrated.  It  has  no  legal  position 
as  a  church.  It  is  nothing  more  than  a  private  room. 
Subject  always  to  the  authority  of  the  Trustees,  so  far  as  ecclesias- 
tical authority  was  concerned,  I  might  have  had  the  "  use  of 
Sarum"  had  I  desired  to  do  so. 

Now,  mark  me,  Mr.  President,  when  I  say  that  with  all 
this,  the  ritual  at  Racine  does  not  materially  differ,  as  these  gen- 
tlemen well  know,  from  that  which  prevails  at  Nashotah  Chapel, 
which  is  a  Parish  church ;  and  is  not  so  advanced  in  its  charac- 
ter as  the  ritual  in  Trinity  Church  New  York,  and  its  Chapels. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Wilkinson  from  some  remark  of  mine  has 
insinuated  to  this  Body  that  this  moderation  has  been  due  to  pol- 
icy or  timidity.  Let  me  state  to  what  principles  of  action  it  has 
been  due. 

1 .  While  I  hold  that  every  rubric  of  the  Prayer  Book  must 
be  obeyed,  I  do  not  believe  the  Prayer   Book  to   be  a   Book  of 
full  ritual  directions. 

2.  I  do  not   believe  that   by  adding   to  the  Prayer  Book 
some  vague  notion  of  usage,  the  law  of  the  Church  on  the  sub- 
ject of  ritual  is  to  be  found. 

3.  I  do  not  think  that  the  Church  has  a  distinct  and   clear 
law  of  ritual. 

4.  I  hope  the  day  may  come  when   we  can    approach  the 
question  of  what  that  law   must  be,  in  a  spirit  of  charity ;  and 
when  we  do,  I  hope  we  shall  find  room  for  both  lofty  ceremonial, 
and  for  simple  services. 

5.  Meanwhile  individual  action,    and   sometimes  irregular 
action,  has  preceded,  as  it  always  does,  corporate  action. 

I  myself  in  adopting  any  ornament  or  ceremony  have  been 
governed  by  five  distinct  practical Jdeas, 


—34- 

1.  That   it   should   not   contradict   any   doctrine   of   the 
Church. 

2.  That  it  should  have  common  sense  in  its  favour. 

3.  That    it   should     not   provoke  vehement    controversy 
among  those  for  whose  benefit  it  was  intended. 

4.  That  it  should  not  be  unreal,  but  for  the  good  of  souls. 

5.  That    it    should  not   be  against   the  command   of  the 
Bishop. 

Inasmuch  therefore  as  my  principles  do  not  necessarily  in- 
volve any  one  of  the  ceremonies  which  are  distinctly  and  exclu- 
sively Roman,  inasmuch  as  with  the  exception  of  Lights  on 
the  altar  at  early  celebrations,  and  on  some  great  festivals  at  a 
late  one,  I  have  never  practiced  any  one  of  the  three  classes 
of  ceremonies  enumerated ;  I  charge  my  Brethren  with  grave  mis- 
representation in  this  paragraph.* 

I  come  now  Mr.  President  to  the  subject  of 

CONFESSION. 

Here,  too,  I  must  make  a  distinction.  I  must  state  what  I 
hold,  and  what  I  do  not  hold ;  what  I  do,  and  what  I  do  not 
practice.  I  suppose  that  nobody  doubts  that  Confession  of  some 
sort  is  allowed  in  the  Church  of  England.  Enforced  upon  every 
communicant  before  the  Reformation,  after  the  year  1215  ;  the 
first  Prayer  Book  of  Ed  ward  the  VI.  had  the  following  in  the  ex- 
hortation to  tie  Holy  Communion,  distinctly  showing  both 
what  the  Church  of  England  meant  to  forbid,  and  what  it  meant 
to  allow  : 

"  If  there  be  any  of  you  whose  conscience  is  troubled  and  grieved  in  any- 
thing, lacking  comfort  or  counsel,  let  him  come  to  me  or  to  some  other  dis- 
creet and  learned  priest,  taught  in  the  law  of  God,  and  confess  and  open  his 
sin  and  grief  secretly,  that  he  may  receive  such  ghostly  counsel,  advice  and 
comfort,  that  his  conscience  may  be  relieved,  and  that  of  us,  (as  of  the  minis- 
ters of  God  and  of  the  Church)  he  may  receive  comfort  and  absolution,  to  the 
satisfaction  of  his  mind,  and  avoiding  all  scruple  and  doubtfulness :  requiring 
such  as  shall  be  satisfied  with  a  general  confession  not  to  be  offended  with 
them  that  so  use  to  their  further  satisfying  the  auricular  and  secret  confession 
to  the  Priest;  nor  those  also  which  think  needful  or  convenient,  for  the  quiet- 
ness of  their  own  consciences,  particularly  to  open  their  sins  to  the  priest,  to 

*A  white  linen  Alb  and  Chasuble  are  used  at  the  celebiation  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the 
Chapel  of  Racine  College. 


-35- 

be  offended  with  them  that  are  satisfied  with  their  humble  confession  to  God, 
and  the  general  confession  to  the  Church ;  but  in  all  things  to  follow  and 
keep  the  rule  of  charity,  and  every  man  to  be  satisfied  with  his  own  con- 
science, not  judging  other  men's  consciences  ;  whereas  he  has  no  warrant  of 
God's  word  to  the  same." 

After  some  alteration  in  1552,  this  part  of  the  Communion 
exhortation  received  in  1661  the  form  which  it  has  now  in  the 
English  Prayer  Book,  viz.: 

"And  because  it  is  requisite  that  no  man  should  come  to  the  Holy  Com- 
munion but  with  a  full  trust  in  God's  mercy  and  with  a  quiet  conscience  ; 
therefore  if  there  be  any  of  you,  who  by  this  means  cannot  quiet  his  own  con- 
science herein,  but  re'quireth  further  comfort  or  counsel,  let  him  come  to  me 
or  to  some  other  discreet  and  learned  minister  of  God's  word,  and  open  his 
grief;  that  by  the  ministry  of  God's  holy  word  he  may  receive  the  benefit  of 
absolution,  together  with  ghostly  counsel  and  advice,  to  the  quieting  of  his 
conscience,  and  avoiding  of  all  scruple  and  doubtfulness." 

The  exhortation  in  our  own  Prayer  Book  is  as  follows  : 

"  And  because  it  is  requisite  that  no  man  should  come  to  the  Holy  Com- 
munion but  with  a  full  trust  in  God's  mercy,  and  with  a  quiet  conscience  ; 
therefore,  if  there  be  any  of  you,  who  by  this  means  cannot  quiet  his  own  con 
science  herein,  but  requireth  further  comfort  or  counsel,  let  him  come  to  me 
or  to  some  other  minister  of  God's  word,  and  open  his  grief ;  that  he  may  re- 
ceive such  godly  counsel  and  advice,  as  may  tend  to  the  quieting  of  his  con- 
science and  the  removing  of  all  scruple  and  doubtfulness." 

I  pass  over  every  other  passage  in  the  English  Prayer  Book 
and  in  our  own  that  may  bear  upon  the  subject.  I  do  not  here 
take  up  the  question  of  Absolution,*  public  or  private,  because  the 
Document  does  not  speak  of  it,  and  I  assert,  that  no  one  can 
deny  that  these  exhortations  literally  and  historically,  clearly 
show,  that  Confessions  in  certain  states  of  mind,  of  which  the  com- 
municant is  to  be  the  sole  judge,  are  approved  of,  in  the  church 
of  England  and  our  own.  Nor  am  I  able  to  accept  what  seems 
to  me  to  be  an  illogical  deduction,  that  because  the  Church  ad- 
vises it  in  certain  cases,  she  therefore  necessarily  forbids  it  in  all 
others.  Nor  have  these  been  mere  exhortations  which  have  influ- 
enced no  one.  From  the  Reformation  to  the  present  day, 
many  of  the  noblest  and  most  devout  of  the  children  of  the 
Church  of  England,  have  found  peace  and  forgiveness  in  the  use 
of  this  blessed  privilege. 

*See  Appendix  iv. 


-36- 

Visitation  articles  of  such  Bishops  as  Overall,  (who  wrote  the 
part  of  the  Church  catechism  about  the  Sacraments),  in  1619, 
Andrewes,  (whose  custom  has  been  previously  mentioned),  in 
1625  ,  Cosin,  as  Archdeacon  o-f  York,  in  1627,  Montague,  in 
1687,  enquire  whether  the  minister  exhorts  people  to  come  to 
ghostly  counsel  and  comfort,  and  the  benefit  of  absolution,  and 
whether  the  minister  reveals  the  things  confessed. 

The  ii3th  Canon,  of  1603,  passed  half  a  century  after  the 
Reformation,  one  of  that  very  set  of  canons,  a  portion  of  which 
many  in  the  last  General  Convention  desired  to  reenact,  and  to 
which  I  was  opposed,  has  this  clause  in  it :  "Provided  always  that 
if  any  man  confess  his  secret  and  hidden  sins  to  the  minister,  for 
the  unburdening  of  his  conscience  and  to  receive  spiritual  conso- 
lation and  ease  of  mind  from  him," the  clergyman  is 

not  to  reveal  what  is  confessed  (except  crimes,  the  concealment 
of  which  would  endanger  his  own  life),  on  pain  of  irregularity. 
In  the  Convocation  of  1640,  though  the  acts  of  the  Convo- 
cation were  not  confirmed  by  Royal  authority ;  it  was  made  one 
of  the  enquiries  which  were  to  be  made  in  all  visitations,  whether 
revelations  had  been  made  of  things  confessed. '  Nay,  in  that 
very  Irish  Church  in  which  Dr.  Adams  was  born  and  bred,  a 
canon  (canon  xix  of  the  Church  of  Ireland,)  was  drawn  up  in 
the  primacy  of  Archbishop  Ussher,  by  the  great  Bramhall, 
and  passed  in  1634,  and  afterwards  reenacted  in  1701  ;  which 
provided  that  the  minister  of  the  Parish  should  give  warning  by 
the  tolling  of  a  bell,  or  otherwise,  "to  the  intent  that  if  any  have 
any  scruple  of  conscience  or  desire  the  special  ministry  of  recon- 
ciliation, he  may  afford  it  to  those  who  need  it  j"  and  the  people 
are  to  be  exhorted  to  self  examination  that  they  may  resort  unto 
God's  ministers  not  only  for  advice  arid  counsel,  but  also  for  "the 
benefit  of  absolution,  likewise,  for  the  quieting  of  their  con- 
sciences, by  the  power  of  the  keys  which  Christ  has  committed 
to  His  ministers  for  that  purpose."  I  believe  that  during  the  last 
two  or  three  years,  while  the  Irish  Church  has  been  standing  on 
the  very  verge  of  the  denial  of  the  truth,  (which  may  God 
avert !)  this  canon  has  been  repealed  ;  but  for  more  than  two 
hundred  years  after  it  was  enacted,  it  was  the  Jaw  of  the  Irish 
Church. 


-37- 

The  testimonies  of  Bishops  and  Doctors  in  the  Church  of  En- 
gland are  almost  without  number.  They  include  the  noblest  names 
and  the  fairest  lives  our  mother  Church  and  mother  land  have 
known. 

Dr.  Donne,  who  died  in  1631  and  was  Dean  of  St.  Pauls  in 
King  James  I.  reign  says,  in  one  of  his  sermons;  (vol.v.  p.  434.) 
"For  Confession,  we  require  public  confession  in  the  Congregation :  and 
in  time  of  sickness  upon  the  death  bed,  we  enjoin  private  and  particular  Con- 
fession, if  the  conscience  be  oppressed ;  and  if  any  man  do  think  that  that 
which  is  necessary  for  him  upon  his  death  bed,  is  necessary  every  time  he 
comes  to  the  Communion,  and  so  come  to  such  a  Confession,  if  anything  lie 
upon  him,  as  often  as  he  comes  to  the  Communion  we  blame  not,  we  dissuade 
not,  we  discounsel  not,  that  tenderness  of  conscience  and  that  safe  proceed- 
ing in  the  soul." 

Bishop  Cosin  who  was  one  of  those  engaged  in  the  last  revi- 
sion of  the  English  Prayer  book,  and  whose  Book  of  devotions 
was,  when  I  was  at  Nashotah  as  a  Tutor,  the  authorized  book  of 
devotions  there,  gives  it  as  one  of  the  Precepts  of  the  Church ; 
[p.  121  of  vol.  ii.  of  works  in  Angl.  Cath.  Lib.] 

"  And  for  better  preparation  thereunto,  (the  Holy  Communion)  as  occa- 
sion is,  to  disburthen  and  quiet  our  consciences  of  those  sins  that  may  grieve 
us,  or  scruples  that  may  trouble  us,  to  a  learned  and  discreet  Priest,  and  from 
him  to  receive  advice  and  the  benefit  of  absolution." 

Similar  quotations  might  be  given  from  such  men  as  Ham- 
mond and  Heylin,  the  great  Ussher,  holy  George  Herbert, 
and  Bishop  Hall,  from  the  judicious  Hooker  and  Jeremy  Taylor, 
from  Sparrow,  Pearson  and  Patrick.  Most  churchmen  have  no 
conception  of  the  abundance  of  authorities,  of  the  clearness  of 
the  statements  and  of  the  undoubted  truth  of  the  fact,  that  the 
great  divines  of  the  church,  have  maintained  the  rights  of  the 
children  of  the  church  to  confess  their  sins  to  Almighty  God  in  the 
presence  of  a  Priest,  as  need  might  require.  I  will  conclude  the 
extracts  with  the  words  of  Archbishop  Wake,  who  died  in  1737. 

"  The  Church  of  England  refuses  no  sort  of  confession  either  public  or 
private,  which  may  be  any  way  necessary  to  the  quieting  of  mens'  consciences 
or  to  exercising  that  power  of  binding  and  loosing  which  our  Saviour  Christ  has 
left  to  His  church.  We  have  our  penitential  canons  for  public  offences,  we 
exhort  men  if  they  have  any  the  least  doubt  or  scruple,  nay  sometimes  though 
they  have  none,  but  especially  before  the  Holy  Sacrament,  to  confess  their 
sins.  We  propose  to  them  the  benefit  not  only  of  ghostly  advice  how  to  man- 


-38- 

age  their  repentance,  but  the  great  comfort  of  absolution  too  as  soon  as  they 
shall  have  completed  it."  [Exposition  of  Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England 
pp.  42  and  43.] 

What  these  great  Divines  taught  they  also  practiced.  Arch- 
bishop Laud  records  in  his  Diary  that  he  had  been  appointed 
Confessor  to  the  Duke  of  Buckingham.  Bishop  Sanderson  who 
died  in  1663,  the  day  before  his  death  received  absolution  from 
Mr.  Pullin  his  chaplain,  "  pulling  off  his  cap  that  Mr.  Pullin 
might  lay  his  hand  upon  his  bare  head."  After  this  desire  of 
his  was  satisfied,  his  body  seemed  to  be  more  at  ease  and  his 
mind  more  cheerful,  and  he  said,  "  Lord  forsake  me  not  now 
my  strength  faileth  me ;  but  continue  thy  mercy  and  let  my 
mouth  be  filled  with  thy  praise."  [Walton's  Life  of  Sanderson 
p.  428.]  The  saintly  Bishop  Wilson  who  wrote  the  "  Sacra 
Privata,"  thanked  God  that  his  wife  had  confessed,  and  received 
absolution  in  her  last  illness  (1705).  Bishop  Ken  pronounced  an 
absolution  little  deserved  and  heeded  over  the  dying  Charles  II. 
(see  Macaulay's  Hist.)  ;  and  to  sum  up  all  I  give  the  account 
which  Isaac  Walton  the  typical  English  layman  gives,  of  the 
practice  in  life  and  death,  of  the  great  Hooker,  the  typical  Eng- 
lish Divine.  [Lives  pp.  248  and  249].  Let  it  be  noted  that  the 
Dr.  Saravia  spoken  of,  was  a  clergyman  who  had  left  Holland 
because  of  his  belief  in  Episcopacy,  and  had  received  preferment 
in  the  Church  of  England,  and  was  afterwards  one  of  the 
Translators  of  the  English  Bible. 

"  About  one  day  before  his  death,  Dr.  Saravia,  who  knew  the  very  se- 
crets of  his  soul — -for  they  were  supposed  to  be  Confessors  to  each  other — came 
to  him  and,  after  a  conference  of  the  benefit,  the  necessity,  and  safety  of  the 
Church's  absolution,  it  was  resolved  the  Doctor  should  give  him  both  that 
and  the  Sacrament  the  following  day.  To  which  end  the  Doctor  came  and 
after  a  short  retirement  and  privacy  they  two  returned  to  the  company  ;  and 
then  the  Doctor  gave  him  and  some  of  those  friends  that  were  with  him,  the 
blessed  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  our  Jesus.  Which  being  per- 
formed the  Doctor  thought  he  saw  a  reverend  gaiety  and  joy  in  his  face  .  .  . 
....  the  day  following  he  found  him  deep  in  contemplation  and  not  in- 
clinable to  discourse ;  which  gave  the  Doctor  occasion  to  require  his  present 
thoughts.  To  which  he  replied  "  That  he  was  meditating  the  number  and 
nature  of  angels,  and  their  blessed  obedience  and  order,  without  which,  peace 
could  not  be  in  Heaven;  and  oh!  that  it  might  be  so  on  earth  !" 

I  may  venture  perhaps  to  add  a  proof  which  is  not  exactly 


—39— 

theological.  The  novelist  Thackeray,  who  certainly  wrote  in  no 
theological  interest,  but  who  was  too  great  a  writer,  not  to  be  true 
to  history ;  in  his  novel  of  Henry  Esmond,  describing  the  times 
of  Queen  Anne,  makes  Lady  Esmond  go  to  confession,  when 
troubled  in  conscience,  to  the  famous  Dr.  Atterbury,  and  receive 
absolution  from  him. 

All  this  does  not  need  to  be  proved  to  any  theologian. 
The  six  Presbyters  are  as  well  aware  of  it  as  I  am.  But  the 
laity  whom  they  have  addressed  are  not.  They  have  been 
scared  with  a  word.  This  has  been  the  first  injustice.  A  graver 
wrong  is  to  be  found  in  the  three  following  passages  of  "Prin- 
ciples not  Men." 

1 .  That  I  teach  "Auricular  confession  as  having  a   sacramental  charac- 
ter, and  therefore  useful  for  all  Christians  as  an  ordinary  means  of  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins." 

2.  That  "The  members  of  the  Church  are  to  be   persuaded,  as  an  ordi- 
nary and  frequent  thing,  to  come  to  auricular  confession  and  to  put  their  con- 
sciences iu  'holy  obedience1  under  the  Priest' 's  'direction?  " 

3.  "If  Dr.  De  Koven  is  made  Bishop  of  Wisconsin,  the  necessary  ten- 
dency of  his  principles  and  associations  will  be,  to  require  an  arrangement  of 
the  Episcopal   Cathedral,  identical  with  that  of  Bishop  Henni's  Cathedral ; 
the  Altar  must  be  decorated  with  lights;  the  priest  must  be  dressed  in  vest- 
ments, the  people  must  prostrate  themselves  at  the  elevation  of  the  Host,  the 
confessional  boxes  must  line  the  walls,  the  people  will  not  know  whether  they 
are  in  one  or  the  other,"  etc. 

If  the  last  paragraph  be  so  overstrained  that  it  naturally  pro- 
duces laughter,  none  the  less  do  the  three  passages  make  a  charge 
against  me  of  utter  disloyalty  and  unfaithfulness  to  the  Church. 
I  have  quoted  the  views  and  practices  of  a  long  line  of  divines 
of  the  Church  of  England.  Any  controversialist  by  examining 
the  writings  of  some  of  them,  notably  of  Hooker,  Ussher  and 
Jeremy  Taylor,  can  bring  forward  the  strongest  language  against 
Confession.  And  why?  Because  the  Church  of  England  has  a 
distinct  doctrine  on  the  subject  of  confession,  which  clearly  dis- 
tinguishes it  from  that  of  Rome.  When  they  advocate  confes- 
sion they  mean  the  confession  their  own  Church  permits,  ap- 
proves and  advises.  When  they  speak  against  confession,  they 
mean  the  system  which  the  Reformation  reformed. 

There  are  five  chief  points  in  which  the  Church  of  England 
differs  from  that  of  Rome. 


—40- 

DIFFERENCES  BETWEEN    ROME   AND  ENGLAND  ON 
CONFESSION. 

1.  Rome  believes  that   imperfect  sorrow  or  attrition  be- 
comes contrition  or  perfect  sorrow  by  means  of  Confession. 

The  Church  of  England  denies  this  as  a  necessary  conse- 
quence ;  and  so  do  I. 

2.  Rome  teaches  that  there  are  two  kinds   of  punishment 
due  to  sin,  eternal  and  •  temporal.     It  subdivides  the   latter  into 
the  punishments  to  be  borne  in  this  life,  and  those  in  purgatory. 
Absolutions  remit  the  former,  the  latter  are  taken  away  by  Pen- 
ances.   Hence  sprang  up  the  necessity  of  "numbering  sins,"  and 
the  whole  theory  of  indulgences. 

The  Church  of  England  denies  this  and  so  do  I,  regarding 
with  her,  acts  of  penance  as  useful  and  desirable,  only  as  a  means 
of  deepening  repentance,  and  as  a  test  of  its  genuineness. 

3.  The  Church  of  Rome  permits  at  least,  the  addition  of 
Direction  to  Confession,  namely,    the  laying  bare  of  heart  and 
motives,  that  the  Priest  may  guide  the  life. 

Believing  in  the  desirability  of  confession,  accepting,  too, 
the  principle  of  such  necessary  guidance  as  scrupulous  persons 
may  require,  or  extraordinary  contingencies  demand  ;  I  abhor  the 
very  notion  of  "Direction." 

4.  The  Church  of  Rome  enforces  confession ;  the  Church 
of  England  makes  it  voluntary  ;  and  so  do  I. 

5.  And  most  important,  the  Church  of  Rome  regards  con- 
fession as  necessary  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  therefore  enforces  it. 

The  Church  of  England,  on  the  other  hand,  regards  the  vol- 
untariness  of  confession  as  a  necessary  element  in  its  usefulness, 
because,  though  often  necessary  to  penitence  and  relief  of  the  bur- 
dened soul,  it  is  not  necessary  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins ;  and  as  the 
Church  teaches,  so  do  I. 

Do  I  need  say  more  upon  this  subject  ?  Let  me  ask  you  to 
consider  that  the  only  proof  which  has  been  brought  forward  on 
this  floor  of  these  unfair  statements,  is  an  accusation  that  in  1870 
or  thereabouts,  I  heard  certain  confessions  at  Nashotah  ;  the  ob- 
ject being  to  show  that  I  intruded  into  the  care  of  souls,  and 
usurped  a  jurisdiction  to  which  I  had  no  right. 

Mr,  President,  to  accuse  me  of  wrong  towards  Nashotah,  is 


—41- 

like  "seething  a  kid  in  its  mother's  milk."     I  came  to  this  Dio- 
cese, from  home  and  friends,  a   newly   ordained  Deacon,  drawn 
hither  by  the  saintly  story  of  Nashotah    House.     For  five  years  I 
was  a  tutor  there,  and  reorganized  the  Preparatory  Department, 
which  was  a  very  necessary    part  of  the  work  of  the  Seminary. 
In  1859  I  moved  to  Racine  College,  which  for  about  ten  years 
after  continued  to  be  the  Preparatory  Department  of  Nashotah. 
I  was  bound  to  Nashotah  by  every  tie.     I  had  given  it  love, 
labour  and  self  denial.     The  youths  to  whom  I  had  been  father, 
friend  and  pastor,  and  whom  I  loved  as  my  own  soul,  and  they 
me,  were  there  as  candidates.     Was  it  surprising  that   now  and 
then,  one  whom  I  had  trained  and  guided  should  look  to  me  for 
spiritual  help.     In  the  course  of  years  there  came  one  or   two 
others,  who  were  recommended  to  me  by  their  own  pastors,  and 
at  last  two  who  perhaps  could  not  be  thus  classified.      The  Rev. 
Dr.  Cole,   then  and  now  President  and  Pastor  of  Nashotah,  has 
informed  you  on  this  floor,  that  whatever  I  did,  I  did  with  his 
knowledge,  consent  and  approval,  and  that  I  did  no  wrong.      Do 
I  need  further  justification?     If  so,  I  hold  in  my  possession  the 
whole  correspondence  which  the  unnecessary  interference  of  Dr. 
Adams  caused,  and  am  prepared  if  need  be  to  publish  it.*     It  is 
somewhat  difficult  for  one  not  versed  in  this  sort  of  controversy 
to  know  what  all  this,  even  if  true  was  intended  to  prove  against 
me.     The  point  of  the  whole  accusation  is  to  be  found  in  the 
story  told  by  Dr.  Adams,  that  a  student  at  Nashotah  had  refused 
to    recite   not  to   himself,   but   to  some  other  professor,  on  the 
ground  that  his  "Director"   had  told   him  not  to  do  so.      But, 
Mr.   President,  a  classmate  of  the  gentleman  sits  before  us,  and 
has   just    borne   witness   that  the  statement  is    incorrect,    and 
the  President   of  the  institution  has  also  informed  us,  that  he 
too   had  examined    the  statement  in  question,    and   found   the 
facts   not   to   be  as  alleged.     If  /  am  meant  by   the  Director 
in   question,   let   me   say  that  the  story,   so   far  as  I  am  con- 
cerned,   is   a  dream  of  my   Brother's   imagination,   and  that   I 
have  in  my  possession  a  letter  of  the  young  man  himself,  now  an 
estimable  clergyman  of  the  Church,  denying  it  in  Mo. 

I  have  only  one  thing  to  add  in  conclusion  that  in  the  un- 

*See  Appendix  v. 


—42- 

certain  state  of  the  practice  of  the  church  in  regard  to  Confession, 
I  long  ago  adopted  certain  principles  for  my  guidance. 

1.  Not  to  hear  the  Confessions  of  minors  without  the  con- 
sent of  their  parents,  not  even  allowing  a  lad  in  my  own  College 
to  make  a  Confession  even  if  he  desired  to  do  so,  if  his  parents 

forbade. 

2.  Not  to  hear  the  Confession  of  a  wife,  ordinarily,  with- 
out the  consent  of  her  husband. 

3.  Not  to  hear  Confessions  in  the  Parishes  of  other  clergy- 
men, under  ordinary  circumstances,  without  their  wish  and  con- 
sent. 

I  dare  say  that  to  the  minds  of  many  such  a  statement  will 

only  provoke  censure.  There  is  a  large  class  to  whom  the  mere 
word  Confession  is  enough.  It  is  easy  to  raise  a  hue  and  cry 
against  it.  But  remember  when  you  do  so,  that  the  loving  care  of 
our  Mother  the  Church  in  this  respect  has  trained  many  a  noble 
soul  to  higher  deeds  of  faith,  and  taught  them  to  sorrow  much, 
that  they  might  have  much  forgiven,  and  having  much  forgiven 
to  love  the  more. 

PURGATORY. 

There  are  two  other  charges  in  the  Document.  One  of 
them  has  not  even  been  mentioned  on  this  floor,  and  not  a  soli- 
tary proof  has  been  given  for  it.  It  sounded  well,  however  to 
speak  of  "  Prayers  for  the  dead  with  a  direct  reference  to  PUR- 
GATORY, in  the  case  of  the  most  'advanced  men.1'  Since  my 
accusers  do  not  defend  it  themselves,  I  only  need  to  deny  it. 
The  second  is 

THE  INVOCATION  OF  SAINTS  AND  ANGELS. 

For  proof  of  this  a  somewhat  singular  line  of  argument  is 
adopted. 

1.  A  certain  young  man  joined  the  church  of  Rome. 

2.  This  young  man  had  a  copy  of  the  "Treasury  of  Devo- 
tion" given  him  by  myself. 

3.  The  "Treasury  of  Devotion"  has  certain  prayers  in,  it,* 
which  by  dexterious  twisting,  may  be  made  to  mean    Invocation 

•See  Appendix  vi. 


—43— 

of  Saints  and  Angels,  therefore  the  Rev.  Dr.  DeKoven  believes 
in  the  Invocation  of  saints  and  angels.  Q.  E.  D. 

It  seems  absolutely  pitiful  that  one  should  have  to  answer 
such  arguments. 

But  in  reply: 

1.  The   gentleman   in  questioa   is  not   a  member   of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  but  is  I  am  told  a  lay  reader  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  Diocese  of  Illinois. 

2.  Being  placed  for  a  brief  space   of  time,    in  the   way  of 
helping  this  person,  and  seeing  him  use  a  somewhat  worn    copy 
of  the  "  Treasury  of  Devotion,"    I  replaced  it  with  a  new  one. 

Permit  me  to  ask,  in  this  connection,  whether  a  man  neces- 
sarily pledges  himself  to  every  statement  in  a  devotional  book 
which  he  gives  away.  In  my  youth  Baxter's  "Saints  Rest," 
Wilberforce's  "  Practical  view,"  Doddridge's  "Rise  and  Pro- 
gress" and  Hannah  More's  "Practical  Piety"  were  favorite  gifts. 
Did  one  become  thereby  an  endorser  of  all  in  them.  Have 
those  persons,  clerical  and  lay,  who  for  many  years  have  given 
away  the  Prayer  Book  with  the  old  collection  of  Psalms  and 
Hymns,  become  responsible  for  the  doubtful  doctrine  some  of 
the  hymns  contained.  May  one  not  present  an  unabridged  edition 
of  Thomas  a  Kempis,  best  and  holiest  of  Books,  and  yet  not 
quite  endorse  all  his  Eucharistic  expressions.  But. 

3.  The  "Treasury  of  Devotion"  is  a  slandered  Book.      It 
is  edited  by  the  Rev.  T.  T.  Carter,   one  of  the  holiest  Priests  of 
the  Church  of  England.     The    third   edition  has   the  following 
endorsement. 

PALM  SUNDAY,  1869. 

"I  have  looked  through  your  book  and  have  begun  to  use  it.  In  fact,  I 
feel  that  I  am  now  in  a  position  to  do  more  than  acknowledge  your  gift :  I 
thank  you  heartily  for  it,  and  assure  you  that  it  is  to  me  a  blessed  thought  that 
one,  who  was  one  of  my  own  clergy,  should  now  give  me  such  effectual  help 
to  prepare  for  my  account.  May  God  bless  you  and  keep  you  in  your  blessed 
work.  This  is  the  hearty  prayer  and  wish  of  your  affectionate  brother  in 
Christ,  W.  K.  SARUM." 

This  letter  was  written  in  the  fourth  month  of  his  illness, 
rather  more  than  four  months  before  his  death,  by  the  saintly 
Bishop  Hamilton,  of  Salisbury,  now  at  rest  with  God. 

The  prayers  alluded  to  are  all  of  them  prayers  to  Almighty 


—44— 

God  that  the  intercessions  of  His  Saints  may  help  us.  They  are 
not  prayers  to  the  Saints,  but  simply  prayers  to  God.  Does  any 
one  doubt  that  these  intercessions  are  offered.  From  this  angry 
war  of  words,  and  bitter  strife,  I  turn  my  thoughts  away,  to  that 
land  where  the  "wicked  cease  from  troubling  and  the  weary  are 
at  rest."  I  hear  that  ceaseless  tide  of  prayer,  that  aweful  swell  of 
liturgic  worship,  that  from  the  saints  beneath  the  altar  is  upward 
borne,  while  the  ministering  angels  pour  the  "vials  full  of  odours 
which  are  the  prayers  of  Saints."  The  wear)  earth  is  shaking  to 
and  fro.  The  divided  Church  is  racked  and  torn  by  cruel  dis- 
sension, but  far  "beyond  these  voices,"  in  one  united  suppli- 
cation, checked  by  no  discord,  harmed  by  no  schism,  goes  up 
the  cry,  "Lord,  how  long  !"  May  I  not  ask  of  God  to  give  me 
the  benefit  of  this  ceaseless  intercession  of  the  Church  at  rest, 
and  yet  be  not  charged  with  invoking  the  Saints?  Does  the 
Prayer  Book  invoke  the  angels  when  it  prays,  on  St  Michael's 
day,  "Grant  that  as  Thy  holy  angels  always  do  Thee  service  in 
Heaven,  they  may  by  Thy  appointment,  so  succour  and  defend  us 
on  Earth."  Is  all  this  anything  more  than  a  belief  in  the  grand 
old  doctrine  of  the  Communion  of  Saints?  And  this  is  all  that 
the  Treasury  of  Devotion  can  be  accused  of. 

But  in  conclusion,  let  me  ask,  Mr.  President,  are  these 
things  after  all  the  dangers  of  the  Church  of  Wisconsin?  Do  we 
need  to  warn  our  people  against  Confession,  Eucharistical  Adora- 
tion, and  too  much  reverence?  Is  Milwaukee  full  of  penitents? 
Are  the  rural  districts  of  Wisconsin  inclined  to  superstition  ? 
Must  I  say,  that  even  I,  who  am.  supposed  to  embody  all  this 
idea  of  over  much  religion ;  outside  of  my  own  College,  and  some 
few  directly  or  indirectly  connected  with  it,  as  before  mentioned; 
have  never  heard  the  confession  of  a  lay  man  or  a  lay  woman  in 
the  whole  Diocese  of  Wisconsin.  Nay,  under  whatever  circum- 
stances I  have  been  thrown  in  a  ministry  of  nearly  20  years,  out- 
side of  the  same  limits,  I  have  not  heard  the  Confessions  of  more 
than  twenty  persons,  clerical  and  lay,  in  this  whole  land.  The 
average  of  one  a  year  may  be  surely  sufficiently  exceptional. 

My  Brethren,  I  see  before  me  the  mighty  work  the  Church  of 
God  might  do.  I  hear  the  cries  of  pain  and  anguish  that  go 
up  to  Heaven.  This  terrible  record  of  crime  and  misery,  this 


-45- 
story  of  lost  and  ruined  souls,  we  do  not  save,  rends  my  heart. 
I  know  that  the  chief  dangers  of  the  day  do  not  lie  in  too  many  con- 
fessions, or  over  wrought  devotion,  or  too  high  an  appreciation  of 
the  Sacraments  of  the  Church.  They  are  rather  to  be  found  in  unbe- 
lief and  sin,  in  corruption  and  dishonour,  in  covetousness,  lust 
and  irreverence,  in  inaction,  and  stagnation,  and  quaking  timid- 
ity, and  ye  all  know  it  ! 

But  from  such  thoughts  as  these,  from  all  that  has  passed  in 
these  sad  days,  from  a  bitterness  I  have  not  deserved,  nay,  even 
from  these  warm  hearts  whose  human  sympathy  has  sustained  me 
in  this,  my  time  of  trial,  I  turn  myself  away.  I  lift  my  heart  to 
Him  on  Whose  Almighty  Arm  I  lean,  and  in  Whose  mighty 
power  even  my  weakness  is  strong,  and  louder  than  the  din  of 
angry  words,  nay,  because  of  the  prayers  that  so  many  have  lov- 
ingly prayed,  I  hear  the  gracious  promise  : 

"Commit  thy  way  unto  the  Lord,  and  He  will  bring  it  to 
pass. ' ' 

"  He  will  make  thy  righteousness  as  clear  as  the  light,  and 
thy  just  dealing  as  the  noon  day." 


APPENDIX. 


I. 

REV.  JAMES  DEK.OVEN,  D.  D., 

Rev.  and  Dear  Brother: 

Will  you  permit  the  undersigned  your  brothers  in  the  Holy  Ministry;  who  have  known 
you  intimately  for  many  years  and  regard  you  with  unfeigned  love  and  admiration ;  and 
who  are  persuaded  that  some  of  your  opinions  and  practices  as  a  priest  in  this  church  are 
much  misunderstood,  and  in  some  cases  we  fear  uncharitably  misrepresented,  to  ask  you  re- 
spectfully and  in  the  interests  of  truth  and  peace  the  following  questions  ? 

1.  Are  you,  or  have  you  ever  been  a  member  of  the  Society  called  the  "  Confraternity 
of  the  Blessed  Sacrament?" 

2.  Do  you  believe  in  any  other  than  a  Spiritual   Presence  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  our 
Lord  in  the  Holy  Eucharist ;  or  that  worship  can  be  lawfully  paid  to  the   material  elements 
in  that  Sacrament  ?" 

3.  Do  you  regard  high  ritual  in  public  worship  as  generally  desirable  or  necessary  ? 

4.  Do  you  believe  confession  to  a  priest  to  be  necessary  to   the   forgiveness   of  sins;  or 
necessary  as  a  preliminary  to  the  due  reception  of  the  Holy  Communion? 

We  do  not  ask  these  questions  for  the  sake  of  being  ourselves  convinced  that  you  hold  no 
views  which  the  wise  liberality  of  our  church  does  not  tolerate  ;  or  that  you  encourage  no 
usages  either  in  your  public  or  private  ministrajions  which  she  does  not  allow.  For  of  this 
we  are  already  convinced.  While  we  do  not,  as  you  are  well  aware,  adopt  the  form  of 
words  in  which  you  have  publicly  expressed  an  honest  and  allowed  opinion,  we  would  not,  if 
we  could,  deny  to  you  that  liberty  in  this  or  in  any  other  respect,  which  every  portion  of  the 
Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church  has  ever  granted,  and  (with  the  exception  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  since  the  Vatican  Council)  still  grants  to  her  children  ;  a  liberty  which,  as  it  seems  to 
us,  some  of  our  Brethren  who  demand  and  enjoy  it  without  suspicion  or  censure  themselves, 
are  unwilling  to  accord  to  all  to  whom  the  Church  accords  it. 

Our  purpose  in  asking  these  questions  is.  that  we  may,  with  your  consent  give  such  pnb- 
licity  to  your  answers  as  truth  and  justice,  and  the  welfare  of  the  Church  of  which  you  are  an 
honoured  and  influential  Presbyter  may  seem  to  require. 

Having  often  conversed  with  you  on  the  points  they  cover,  we  are  assured  that  your  an- 
swers will  disabuse  many  ot  the  suspicions  which  we  believe  to  be  unfounded,  and  put  an 
end  to  imputations,  which  we  are  persuaded  neither  your  opinions  nor  your  practices  justify. 

With  sentiments  of  great  respect  and  warm  affection  we  remain  your  brothers  in  Christ 
and  the  Church, 

WM.  BLISS  ASHLEY,  WILLIAM  DAFTER, 

W.  ALEXADER   FALK,  FAYETTF,   ROYCE, 


THE  REV.  DR.  ASHLEY,     THE  REV.  MR.  DAFTKR.    THE  REV.  DR.  FALK,   THE   REV. 

MR.  ROYCE. 
My  Dear  Brethren  . 

I  thank  you  very  much  for  your  kind   letter,  and  am  glad  to  say  anything  I  can,  which 
may  serve  to  lessen  the  misconstruction  of  which  you  write. 


-47- 

1.  I  am  not,  and  never  have  been,  a  member  of  the  Society  called  the  "  Confraternity 
of  the  Blessed  Sacrament,"  nor  in  any  way  connected  therewith.' 

I  ought  not  therefore  to  be  held  responsible  by  any  reasonable  person  for  the  acts  or 
words  of  this  Society,  be  they  good  or  bad. 

2.  With  regard  to  the  Holy  Eucharist,  I  hold  the  views  of  many  of  the  older  Divines  of 
the  Church  of  England— and  especially  of  Bishop   Andrewes — surely  one  of  the  greatest    of 
them;  and  in  our  own  day  of  such  men  as   Bishop  Forbes   of  the  Scotch  Church,   the  late 
Bishop  Hamilton  of  Salisbury,  of  Dr.  Liddon,  the  learned  theologian  and  eloquent  preacher, 
of  Dr.   Pusey,  and  of  John  Keble,  the  saintly  author  of  the  "  Christian  Year." 

Believing  in  the  presence  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord  in  the  C(*isecrated  Elements 
I  believe  that  Presence  to  be  in  no  sense  material  or  corporeal,  but  spiritual :  though  none 
the  less  real  and  true,  because  spiritual. 

I  think  it  would  be  idolatry  to  be  abhorred  of  any  Christian  man,  to  worship  the  material 
Elements;  nor  would  I  worship  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  in  the  Elements,  as  subsisting 
(were  this  possible)  apart  from  his  Divine  Person.  In  the  words  of  Bishop  Andrewes,  how- 
ever, 

"Assuredly  Christ  Himself  the  substance  of  the  Sacrament  (Res  Sacramenti)  in  and 
with  the  Sacrament  (Sacramentum)  out  of  and  without  the  Sacrament,  wheresoever  He  is,  is 
to  be  adored." 

In  thus  worshipping  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  inasmuch  as  this  worship  is  addressed  to 
His  Divine  Person,  it  would  not  be  addressed  as  though  he  were,  or  could  be,  confined  to 
the  Holy  Elements. 

Nor  do  I  hold  this  view  as  though  I  had  the  right  to  condemn  those  who  might  not  be 
able  to  receive  it ;  as  I  am  well  aware  that  on  this  sacred  and  mysterious  subject,  the  Church 
has  seen  fit  to  tolerate  a  certain  latitude  of  view,  forbidddidg  only  Transubstantiation  on  the 
one  side,  and  Zwinglianism  on  the  other. 

3.  With  regard  to  ritual,  I  believe  that  every  national  Church  has  the  right   to  regulate 
the  outward  worship  of  her  children.     Whensoever  she  commands,  it  is   the  duty  of  her  chil- 
dren to  obey.     Any  ritual   moreover  which  expresses  a  doctrine  the  Church  condemns  is 
wrong.     Within  these  limits  I  think  there  should  be  for  those  who  need  it  a  lofty  ceremonial, 
and  for  others  the  simplest  services.    The  Church  should  be  elastic  enough  to  admit  of  both/ 
Place,  circumstances,  and  needs  will  cause  the  amount  of  ceremonial  to  vary,  for  beyond  all 
ritual  is  charity  to  souls,  and  that  ritual  is  the  best  which  brings  most  sinners  to  Christ. 

4.  With  respect  to  the  Confession  of  Sins  to  God  in   the  presence   of  a  Priest,    I  hold 
that  the  Prayer  Book  in  certain  specified  cases  provides  for  and   encourages  it.     Nor  am  I 
able  to  accept  what  seems  to  me  to  be  an  illogical  deduction,  that  because  the  church  advises 
it  in  certain  cases  she  therefore  necessarily  forbids  it  in  all  others. 

At  the  same  time  I  firmly  hold  that  private  confession  is  neither  necessary  to  the  for- 
giveness of  sins,  nor  a  necessary  preliminary  to  the  Holy  Communion,  nor  to  be  enforced 
upon  any  one.  Indeed  I  regard  the  voluntariness  of  Confession  as  an  absolute  necessity  to 
its  ever  being  of  any  use  to  a  sin-laden  soul. 

Your  questions  so  far  as  they  are  doctrinal  do  not  cover  of  course  the  whole  range  of  these 
important  subjects,  and  my  answers  are  necessarily  limited  to  the  range  they  involve. 

I  have  abstained  from  answering  newspaper  attacks  upon  me,  partly  because  I  had  the 
hope,  that  one  born  and  brought  up  in  the  Church,  and  whose  whole  life,  with  a  ministry  of 
now  nearly  twenty  years,  has  been  honestly  devoted  to  its  service,  might  need  no  defence 
from  cnarges  of  disloyalty  and  dishonour;  and  partly  because  in  all  such  controversies,  one 
is  quite  at  the  mercy  of  either  the  paper  or  its  anonymous  correspondents. 

It  seems  right,  however,  when  my  Brethren  ask  it  of  me,  that  I  should  speak,  lest  by 
my  silence  the  cause  of  the  truth  should  suffer. 

Thanking  you  for  your  kindness  to  me 

I  am  most  truly  your  friend  and  servant, 

JAMES  DE  KOVEN. 


-48- 
II. 

The  following  is  the  Document  entitled  "Principles,  not  Men,"  as  sent 
out  before  the  Council,  to  the  Diocese  of  Wisconsin.  The  correspondence 
contained  in  Appendix  I.  was  not  printed  as  a  reply  to  it,  nor  was  this  docu- 
ment a  reply  to  that  correspondence.  They  appeared  at  the  same  time.  I  beg  to 
call  the  reader's  especial  attention  to  the  portion  of  the  document  printed  in 
italics.  For  the  following  reason.  In  the  Church  Journal  of  March  5th,  the 
editor  professed  to  publish  this  document,  "as  a  very  clear  and  able  setting 
out  of  the  differences  between  "High"  Churchmen  and  self-styled  "Catholics" 

"for  preservation  and    for  a   land-mark  "     But  he   does  hot  state 

that  he  published  an  expurgated  edition.  The  words  in  italics  are  the  parts 
omitted.  It  is  no  slight  testimony  to  their  character  that  even  the  Church 
Journals  ashamed  of  them.  But  what  shall  be  said  of  the  fact  that  the 
Document  is  published  without  the  slightest  hint  being  given  that  it  is  not 
the  original  paper,  and  that  the  editor  has  appended  the  names  of  the  gentlemen 
who  signed  it,  (though  one  had  publicly  withdrawn  his  name,)  as  though  it 
were  the  paper  they  had  originally  signed  : 

"  PRINCIPLES— NOT  MEN." 

The  Chicago  Times  of  Saturday  last,  gives  Urge  space  to  an  account  of  the  interview 
held  by  its  reporter,  with  certain  of  the  clergy  and  laity  of  the  Diocese  of  Wisconsin,  relative 
to  the  approaching  election  of  a  Bishop.  Presuming  that  the  report  is  accurate,  I  desire  to 
make  some  remarks  upon  it. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  De  Koven  evidently  had  the  skill  to  put  his  case  in  the  best  light.  Had 
the  reporter  been  previously  instructed  to  avoid  all  embarrassing  questions,  and  to  give  him 
the  fullest  oppptunity  to  extricate  himself  from  an  untenable  position,  he  could  not  have  put 
his  interrogaries  in  a  more  favorable  manner.  The  one  point  brought  up  was  the  Eucharist! c 
speech  of  Dr.  De  Koven  in  the  last  General  Convention,  and  he  immediately  explained  that 
it  had  been  misunderstood  and  misrepresented,  &c.  But  questions  concerning  the  confession- 
al, prayers  for  the  dead,  purgatory,  the  invocation  of  saints,  the  propitiatory  sacrifice  of  the 
Eucharist,  and  other  well  known  tenets  of  the  Ritualistic  party  were  carefully  avoided. 

There  was  also  throughout  the  whole  report,  the  assumption  that  there  are  but  two  par- 
ties in  the  Episcopal  Church,  the  High  Church  and  Low  Church.  Dr.  De  Koven  claimed 
to  be  a  high  churchman  of  the  "advanced"  type;  and  the  contest  was  represented  as  one 
only  of  men,  and  not  of  principles. 

But  with  all  due  respect  to  Dr.  De  Koven,  this  classification  cannot  be  permitted  to 
pass.  If  the  question  about  the  succession  to  the  Episcopate  of  Wisconsin  were  only  be- 
tween two  high  churchmen,  it  would  not  create  a  tithe  of  the  interest  that  is  felt  in  it  all  over 
the  Church.  The  non-existence  of  a  low  church  party  in  Wisconsin  makes  the  election  of  a 
high  churcnman— if  there  be  no  other  party— a  foregone  conclusion,  and  Dr.  De  Koven  is 
not  so  remarkable  a  man,  psrsonally,  that  his  candidacy,  apart  from  other  considerations, 
would  attract  the  attention  that  is  being  given  to  one  of  the  poorest  dioceses  in  the  Church'. 
The  classification  used  to  be  high  church  and  low  church  ;  but  within  a  few  years  a 
third  party  has  sprung  up,  distinct  from  either,  which  arrogates  to  itself  the  name  of  the 
Catholic  party ;  but  which  is  known  by  others  as  the  Ritualistic  party.  Now  the  great  inter- 
est felt  in  the  Wisconsin  election,  is  due  entirely  to  the  f?ct,  that  it  is  known  to  be  a  question 
between  the  high  church  and  ritualistic  parties.  We  cannot  therefore  permit  the  differences 
between  these  parties  to  be  ignored.  They  are  fundamental,  and  make,  as  we  say,  two  dis- 
tinct parties,  and  not  two  wings  of  the  same  party. 


-49— 

Outside  of  the  Apostles' and  Nicene  creeds  which  are  common  to  all  parties,  the  dis- 
tinctive principles  of  the  high  church  party  are  the  following : 

1.  That  the  Church  is  a  divine  organization. 

2.  That  the  ministry  is  traced  back  in  the  line  of  Apostolic  succession,  in   a  thieefold 
order  of  bishops,  priests  and  deacons. 

3.  Baptismal  regeneration  and  sacramental  grace. 
The  distinctive  principles  of  the  Ritualistic  party  are  : 

1.  The  presence  of  Christ  "in  the   elements,  on  the  altar,"  after  the  consecration  of  the 
bread  and  wine. 

2.  The  use  of  vestsments,  lights,  incense,  &c.,  as  accessories  of  Eucharistic  adoration. 

3.  Auricular  confession  as  having  a  sacramental  character ;  and  therefore  useful  for  all 
Christians  as  an  ordinary  means  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 

4.  Prayers  for  the  dead,  with  a  direct  reference  to  purgatory, .  in  the  case  of  the  most 
"advanced"  men. 

5.  The  invocation  of  saints  and  angels. 

The  high  churchman  charges  the  ritualists  with  "Romanizing,"  because  of  the  above 
tenets.  The  ritualist,  on  the  contrary,  sneers  at  the  high  churchmen  as  "high-and-dry,"  be- 
cause he  will  not  "advance"  with  him  in  the  direction  of  Rome.  The  parties  are  distinct  in 
their  principles  and  their  aims- 

The  text  books  of  the  high  churchmen  are  the  divines  of  the  i6th  and  lyth  centuries  : 
Pearson,  Bull,  Hooker,  Andrewes,  &c.,  and  the  Fathers  of  the  Primitive  Church. 

The  text  books  of  the  ritualist  are  the  writings  of  Pusey,  Newman,  Keble,  R.  I.  Wilber- 
force,  the  volume  of  Gerard  Cobb,  entitled  the  "Kiss  of  Peace,  or  England  and  Rome  at 
One,"  &c.  Mohler's  "Symbolik,"  and  the  scholastic  divines  and  ritualists  of  the  Middle 
Ages,  translations  and  synopses  of  which,  issue  every  now  and  then  from  the  press  of  this 
party. 

As  the  two  parties  are  distinct  in  principle,  so  are  they  in  practice. 

The  practical  results  of  high  church  teaching  are  : 

1.  That  baptised  persons,  being  members  of  the  church,  are  led   to  realize  their  calling 
and  responsibilities  as  "a  royal  priesthood,  a  holy  nation,  a  peculiar  people." 

2.  That  the  threefold  ministry  of  apostolic  succession  is  exclusive  of  Popes  on  the.  one 
side,  and  of  unauthorized  teachers  on  the  other. 

3.  That  the  sacramental  union  of  the  faithful  with  their  risen  Lord  is  at  once  the  means 
and  the  call  to  holiness  of  heart  and  life. 

The  practical  results  of  ritualistic  teachings  are  : 

1.  1  hat  the  eucharistic  service  is  to  be  assimilated  in  its  outward   semblance,  as  much 
as  possible,  to  the  mass  celebrated  in  Roman  Catholic  churches,  by  means  of  the  accessories 
of  lights,  music,  vestments,  incense,  postures,  genuflexions  and  adorations. 

2.  That  non-recipients  are   to  be  present  at  the  eucharistic  service,  for  the  purpose  of 
being  benefited  by  the  sacrifice,  and  of  directing  acts  of  adoration  to  the  presence  in  the  ele- 
ments on  the  altar. 

3.  That  members  of  the  church  are   to  be  persuaded,   as  an  ordinary  and    frequent 
thing,  to  come  to  auricular  confession  and  to  put  their  consciences  in  "holy  obedience,"  un- 
der the  priest's  "direction." 

4.  That  the  eucharist  is  to  be  offered,  ai  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  for  the  living  and  the 
dead. 

5.  That  prayers  for  the  dead,  and  the  invocation    of  saints  and  angels   are  to  be  prac- 
tised. 

These  being  the  differences  between  the  high  church  and  ritualistic  parties,  it  is  evident 
what  must  be  the  interest  felt  in  the  Wisconsin  election,  when  the  candidate,  who  was 
claimed  by  the  ritualistic  party  in  the  Massachusetts  election,  the  Rev.  Dr.  De  Koven,  is  put 
forward  in  the  diocese  in  which  he  resides  The  Wisconsin  election  is  a  test  of  the  rela- 
tive strength  of  the  high  church  and  ritualistic  parties,  in  a  diocese  in  which  there  is  no  low 
church  party  to  help  it  against^the  ritualists, 


-50- 

Now  accepting  the  Rev.  Dr.  DC  Koven's  explanation  of  his  position,  as  given  in  the 
Times  report,  it  still  remains  true  that  Dr.  De  Koven  is  identified  with  the  ritualistic  party, 
by  his  adoption  of  the  words  of  Mr.  Bennett,  in  the  celebrated  Knglish  trial,  and  his  en- 
trenchment of  himself  behind  them  in  "adjudicated  words." 

Dr.  De  Koven  avows  a  presence  to  be  adored  in  the  elements  on  the  altar.  He  claims 
that  this  is  within  the  limits  of  opinion  allowed  by  the  church.  But  Dr.  De  Koven  knows  as 
well  as  anyone  that  no  article,  rubric,  line  or  word,  authorizes  him  to  set  forth  that  opinion 
as  a  doctrine  of  the  church.  All  that  the  adjudication  amounts  to,  is  that  a  man  who  holds 
this  as  his  private  opinion,  is  not  therefore  suspended  or  excommunicated,  but  for  the  present 
tolerated. 

Dr.  De  Koven  holds  his  right  to  enter  any  pulpit  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  only  by  the 
commission  given  him  to  teach  "as  our  Lord  hath  commanded,  and  as  this  church  hath  re- 
ceived the  same."  But  this  church  has  given  no  sign  in  any  of  her  authorized  formularies, 
that  she  has  "received"  a  revelation  of  a  presence  to  be  adored  in  the  elements  on  the  altar. 
Still  it  may  be  argued  on  behalf  of  Dr.  De  Koven  and  the  ritualists,  that  this  is  a  merely 
speculative  opinion,  especially  as  the  Doctor  explicitly  disavows  a  belief  in  transubstatiation. 
But  unfortunately  the  practical  results  of  this  belief,  are  identical  with  the  practical  results  of 
transubstantiation,  and  the  difference  is  merely  speculative  and  nugatory  as  between  his  be- 
lief and  that  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  For  the  acts  of  adoration  addressed  to  the  presence  in 
the  elements  on  the  altar,  are  precisely  those  addressed  by  the  members  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  to  the  host,  and  none  other.  This  localization  of  the  presence  implies  an  arrangement 
of  the  service,  with  lights,  vestments,  prostrations,  non-communicant  adorations,  a  reserved 
sacrament,  processions  ofCorpus  Christi,  and  all  other  incidents  with  which  the  attendants 
upon  Roman  Catholic  worship  are  familiar,  and  which  are  foreign  to  our  own  "use."  It  im- 
plies an  offering  of  Christ  by  the  priest  for  the  living  and  the  dead — it  implies  in  every  respect, 
what  the  ritualists  call  it,  the  mass,  and  not  the  Holy  Communion. 

Dr.  De  Koven,  again,  is  known  to  recommend  and  practice  auricular  confession.  In 
this  also,  he  and  his  party  make  a  distinction  to  ward  off  the  charge  of  Romanizing,  which 
is  void  of  any  practical  result  in  distinguishing  his  theology  from  that  of  Rome.  The  dis- 
tinction he  makes  is,  that  confession  with  him  is  voluntary,  while  with  the  Romanist  it  is  en- 
forced. But  if  confession  be  of  that  advantage  which  Dr.  De  Koven  and  the  ritualistic  party, 
with  the  church  of  Rome,  believe,  they  cannot  consistently  and  conscientiously  rest  until  they 
have  made  it  enforced  and  not  voluntary.  For  to  leave  their  flocks  without  so  great  a  bene- 
fit, for  the  want  of  its  enforcement,  must  be,  according  to  their  view,  a  dereliction  of  duty. 
Their  position  with  respect  to  the  confessional  is  only  provisional,  and  not  final,  and  the  "ad- 
vanced" man  in  this  direction,  must  necessarily  be  an  "advancing"  man,  until  he  stands 
fairly  and  squarely  with  the  Church  of  Rome. 

With  respect  to  the  invocation  of  saints,  and  prayers  for  the  dead,  the  position  of  the 
party  and  of  Dr.  De  Koven,  is  not  uncertain,  though  less  is  said  about  these  things,  until 
they  have  made  sure  of  their  position  upon  the  mass  and  the  confessional. 

If  Dr.  De  Koven  is  made  Bishop  of  Wisconsin,  the  necessary  tendency  of  his  princi- 
ples and  associations  will  be  to  require  an  arrangement  of  the  Episcopal  Cathedral,  iden- 
tical with  that  of  Bishop  Henni's  Cathedral;  the  altar  must  be  decorated  with  lights  ; 
the  priest  must  be  dressed  in  vestments,  the  people  must  prostrate  themselves  at  the  ele- 
vation of  the  host,  the  confessional  boxes  must  line  the  walk,  the  people  will 'not  kn^nu 
•whether  they  are  in  the  one  or  the  other.  And  if  Dr  De  Koven  be  held  back  from  this, 
by  the  necessity  of  conceding  to  the  public  opinion  of  his  clergy  and  laity,  he  must  feel 
trammelled  and  uncomfortable  in  the  position  he  will  hold,  and  the  restraint  will  be  the 
more  irksome,  the  more  honest  and  earnest  he  is. 

I  have  written  this,  Mr.  Editor,  not  out  of  any  unfriendly  feeling  for  Dr.  De  Koven,  of 
whose  honesty  and  sincerity  I  have  the  highest  appreciation  ;  but  because  I  believe  Dr.  De 
Koven  to  be  advancing  in  a  wrong  direction,  and  being  so,  to  be  in  greater  danger,  the  more 
honest  and  sincere  he  is.  A  dishonest  man  can  be  inconsistent,  an  honest  man  cannot.  And 
I  want  the  High  Churchmen  of  this  Diocese,  if  they  are  led  by  Dr.  De  Koven's  great  person- 
popularity  to  give  him  their  vote,  to  see  just  what  they  are  doing.  The  High  Church 


-61- 

party  and  the  Ritualistic  party  are  toto  ccelo  apart,  and  if  Dr.  De  Koven  permits  himself  to 
be  identified  with  the  latter,  we,  who  are  of  the  former,  must  let  no  personal  affection  or  ad- 
miration for  him  Hind  us  to  the  possible  consequences. 


A  systematic  attempt  has  been  made   to  give   the   impression   that   in  the  approaching 
n  of  a  Bishop  for  this   Diocese,  the   question  to  be  settled  is  simply  one  of  men,  not  of 
doctrines  and  principles.     The  undersigned  do   not  so   regard  it.     They  have  seen  an  article 
in  the  Milwaukee  papers  of  Janualry  31*1,  which  they  think   sets  forth   correctly  the  points  to 
be  decided  in  the  coming  election.     They  have   reprinted  it   in    its  present   form  for  general 
circulation  in  the  Diocese,  as  a  document  well  calculated  to  give  a  right  view  of  the  issues  in- 
volved in  the  present  contest. 
February  2<\,  1874. 
Signed, 

LEWIS  A.  KEMPER    D.  D.,   Professor  of  Hebrew  and  Biblical    Literature  at 

Nnshotah,  and  Rector  of  St.  Paul's  Church,  Ashippun. 
WILLIAM  ADAMS,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  Systematic  Divinity  at  Nashotah. 
JOHN  H.  EGAR,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  Nashotah. 
ROBERT  N.  PARKE,  Rector  of  Trinity  Church,  Oshkosh. 
JOHN  WILKINSON,  Rector  of  Grace  Church,  Madison. 
MARISON  BYLLESBY,  Rector  of  St.  James  Church,  Milwaukee. 


III. 

An  attempt  has  been  made  in  the  Churchman  of  Feb.  7,  1874,  to  prove 
that  Bishop  Andrewes  did  not  believe  in  the  presence  of  the  Person  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  Sacramental  Union  with  the  Elements  after  Consecration. 
The  article  as  a  whole  is  directed  against  a  circular  of  the  "Confraternity  of 
the  Blessed  Sacrament,"  and  I  only  propose  to  treat  of  this  point  and  of  the 
phrase  "under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine,"  leaving  the  rest  untouched.  The 
paragraph  is  as  follows — I  quote  from  the  Churchman  : 

"  What  does  Bishop  Andrewes  teach  on  this  subject?  In  his  sermon  VII,  on  the  Resur- 
rection, he  is  speaking  of  what  we  receive  in  receiving  the  Consecrated  Elements,  and  he 
expresses  the  act  of  receiving  by  the  word  Eprilemur.  He  then  says,  "  Will  ye  mark  one 
thing  more,  that  efuleiKttr  doth  here  refer  to  immolatus  ?  To  Christ  not  every  way  con- 
sidered, but  as  when  he  was  offered.  Christ's  Body  that  novu  is.  True,  but  not  Christ's  as 
now  it  is,  but  as  then  it  was,when  it  was  offered,  rent  and  slain,  and  sacrificed  for  us.  Not  as 
now  He  is  glorified ;  for  so  He  is  not,  cannot  be  immolatus,  for  he  is  immortal  and  impassi- 
ble. But  as  then  He  was  when  he  suffered  death  :  that  is  passible  and  mortal.  Then  in  His 
Eassible  estate,  did  He  institute  this  of  ours  to  be  a  memorial  of  his  Passible  and  Passio 
oth.  And  we  are  in  this  action  not  only  carried  up  to  Christ  (sursuin  corda)  but  we  are 
also  carried  back  to  Christ,  as  He  was  at  the  very  instant  and  in  the  very  act  of  His  offering. 
So  and  no  otherwise  doth  this  text  teach.  So  and  no  otherwise  do  we  represent  Him.  By 
the  incomprehensible  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  not  He  alone,  but  He,  as  at  the  very  act  of 
His  offering,  is  made  present  to  us,  and  we  incorporate  into  His  death,  and  invested  in  the 
benefits  of  it.  If  an  host  could  be  turned  into  Him,  now  glorified  as  he  is,  it  would  not  serve  ; 
Christ  offered  is  it — thither  we  must  look.  To  the  serpent  lift  up,  thither  we  must  repair, 
even  ad cadavcra:  we  must,  hoc  facere,  do  that  is  then  done.  So,  and  no  otherwise,  is  this 
epularelo  be  conceived:  And  so,  I  think  none  tvill say  they  do  or  can  turn  Him."  [Sermons, 
Vol.  ii,  page  306.] 

Leaving  the  Latin  words  in  italics  of  course,  T  have  ventured  to  alter  the 
italics  of  the  Churchman  and  to  put  some  of  mv_  own.  I  do  this  to  show 
that  whatever  views  Bishop  Andrewes  held  about  the  Sacrifice,  they  did  not 
exclude  the  idea  of  the  Presence  of  Christ's  Glorified  Body  in  Sacramental 
Union  with  the  Consecrated  Elements.  This  fact  is  evident  from  this  very 
quotation.  I  purpose  to  show  from  other  quotations  that  it  does  not  admit  of 
a  doubt.  The  writer  in  the  Churchman  goes  on  : 

"  Now  this  teaching  is  distinct.  It  shows  that  Andrewes  held  that  the  body  and  blood  in 
the  Eucharist  were  "  the  Crucified  Flesh  of  Christ,  and  not  His  Glorified  Perscn  ;"  and 
since  this  flesh,  qua,  crucified  is  not  in  actual  being,  it  is  present,  not  in  substance,  but  in  a 
mystery  and  representatively;  i.e.  "in  spiritual  power  not  by  material  contact." 


-52- 

In  the  passage  the  quotation  marks  and  the  italics  are  those  of  the  writer 
in  the  Churchman. 

Of  course  the  ordinary  reader  would  suppose  that  the  quotation  marks 
showed  that  the  passages  quoted -were  from  Bishop  Andrewes.  This  however 
is  not  the  case  They  are  to  be  found  in  a  little  book  styled  "  Sacrifice  and 
Participation  of  the  Holy  Eucharist"  by  Canon  Trevor,  published  in  1869 
(see  p.  90,  also  pp.  72  and  73),  and  are  in  part  as  foreign  to  the  teaching 
of  Bishop  Andrewes,  as  they  are  to  the  teaching  of  antiquity. 

I  purpose  now  to  show  what  Bishop  Andrewes  really  taught.  To  this  end 
I  will  venture  myself  to  quote  the  book  of  Canon  Trevor,  p.  15. 

"  To  the  first  article  of  this  Decree  (Decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent  concerning  the  Sac- 
rifice of  the  Mass)  the  objections  may  be  reduced  to  a  question  of  words  rather  than  things.  The 
'  Body  and  Blood  '  of  Christ,  mean  in  Scripture  and  in  all  Catholic  Antiquity,  the  crucified 
Body,  and  outshed  Blood  of  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Cross ;  and  it  is  admitted  by  Roman  Catholic 
Divines  that  in  this  condition  they  are  not  really  contained  in  the  Sacrament  but  are  repre 


Cr .... 

taking  of  the  Communion. 

Canon  Trevor  proves  this  assertion  in  regard  to  Roman  Catholic  Divines, 
by  two  quotations,  one  from  Cardinal  Cajetan,  and  the  other  from  Cardinal 
Perron,  as  follows : 

"  The  Sacrament  is  not  really  the  Body  of  Christ  constituted  in  the  actual  state  of  one 
slain,  dead  and  inanimate;  neither  in  that  respect  does  it  contain  it,  but  so  far  represents  it 
only."  [Ordinal  Perron,  de  loc.  Aug.  iii.]  LPatr'ck's  FU"  View,  213.] 

I  quote  the  passage  from  Canon  Trevor  not  as  endorsing  the  words 
"The  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  mean  in  Scripture  and  in  all  Catholic  An- 
tiquity, the  crucified  Body  and  outshed  Blood  of  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Cross," 
and  that  alone;  but  simply  to  show  what  the  view  of  Roman  Catholic 
Divines  and  of  Cardinal  Perron  in  particular  was  upon  the  subject  of  the 
Sacrifice. 

In  the  same  way  Bishop  Buckeridge  in  the  funeral  sermon  he  preached 
for  Bishop  Andrewes,  quotes  Thomas  Aquinas  to  the  same  effect,  as  saying : 

"  That  this  Sacrament  is  called  a  Sacrifice  inasmuch  as  it  doth  represent  the  Passion  of 
Christ ;  it  is  likewise  called  Hostia,  an  '  host '  inasmuch  as  it  containeth  Christ  Himself, 
who  is  Hostia  Salutaris." 

No  one  will  suppose  for  a  moment  that  these  Roman  Catholic  Divines 
did  not  hold  "that  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  together  with  the  Soul  and 
Divinity  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  consequently  the  whole  Christ,"  are 
present  after  consecration. 

My  argument  thus  far  is  simply  to  show,  not  that  Bishop  Andrewes  agreed 
in  all  respects  with  these  Roman  Divines  on  the  Eucharist;  no  one  could 
have  more  earnestly  denied  Transubstantiation  than  he;  but  that  it  is  not  in- 
compatible to  hold  the  two  things  as  present,  Christ's  Body  as  slain  representa- 
tively, and  Christ's  Glorified  Person. 

I  will  now  advance  one  step  further  and  assert  that  in  the  matter  of  the 
Sacrifice,  Bishop  Andrewes  did  not  disagree  with  this  very  Cardinal  Perron 
whom  Canon  Trevor  quotes.  In  his  answer  to  Cardinal  Perron  the  bishop 
says  in  remarkable  language: 

"V.    THE  EUCHARIST  A  SACRIFICE.    6. 

"  i.  The  Eucharist  ever  was  and  by  us  is  considered  both  as  a  Sacrament,  and  as  a 
Sacrifice. 

"2      A  Sacrifice  is  proper  and  appliable  only  to  divine  worship. 

"  3.     The  Sacrifice  of  Christ's  death  did  succeed  to  the  Sacrifices  of  the  Old  Testament. 

"  4.  The  Sacrifice  of  Christ's  death  is  available  for  present,  absent,  living,  dead,  (yea, 
for  them  that  are  yet  unborn*. 

"  5.  When  we  say  the  dead,  we  mean  it  is  available  for  the  Apostles,  Martyrs,  and  Lon- 
fessors,  and  all  (because  we  are  all  members  of  one  Body  ;)  THESE  NO  MAN  WILL  DENY. 

"  6.  In  a  word  we  hold  with  St.  Augustine  in  the  same  chapter  which  the  Cardinal 
citeth,  'guod  hujus  sacrificii  Caro  et  Sanguis,  ante  Adyentum  Christi,per  victimas  simili- 
tudinum  promittebatur  ;  in  passione  Uiristi,  per  ipsam  veritatem  reddtbatur  ;  post 
adventum  (leg.  ascensum,}  Christi,  per  Sacratnentuni  memoria  celebratur."  >  pp.  19  and 
20  of  Bishop  Andrewes'  Minor  Works,  Anglo  Cath.  Lib.] 

The  small  capitals  are  my  own,  the  italics  are  Bishop  Andrewes     and  are 


-63- 

intended  to  show,  I  suppose,  the  points  of  agreement  between  himself  and  the 
Cardinal. 

In  the  summary  at  the  end  of  the  answer  to  the  i8th  chapter  of  Cardinal 
Perron's  reply  (p.  35  of  the  same)  in  summing  up  the  points  of  agreement 
and  difference  between  himself  and  the  Church  of  England  on  the  one  hand, 
and  Cardinal  Perron  on  the  other,  he  mentions  the  Eucharistic  sacrifice  as  a 
point  on  -which  they  agree. 

In  his  reply  to  Cardinal  Bellarmine  also  he  says  (p.  251  of  the  Respon- 
sio.  Angl.  Cath.  Lib  ): 

"  Take  you  away  from  the  Mass   your  Transubstantiation  and  we  shall  not  long  quarrel 
about  the  Sacrifice." 

Agreeing  therefore  with  Cardinal  Perron  and  Cardinal  Bellarmine  as  to 
the  Sacrifice,  though  he  denied  Transubstantiation,  it  is  evident  that  no  remark 
of  Bishop  Andrewes,  in  regard  to  the  Sacrifice,  can  be  used  to  show  that  he  nec- 
essarily therefore  disbelieved  in  our  Lord's  Personal  Presence  in  Sacramental 
Union  with  the  Holy  Elements. 

Bishop  Andrewes  was  too  great  a  theologian  to  be  content  with  the  one 
sided  view  of  the  presence  of  Christ,  merely  as  slain.  He  knew  that  if  "Christ 
died  for  our  sins  "  "  He  rose  again  also  for  our  justification."  According  to 
his  view  Christ  himself  the  inward  part  of  the  Sacrament  was  present  in  Sac- 
ramental union  with  the  Holy  Elements,  in  two  aspects,  as  risen  and  glorified, 
as  well  as  the  "  Lamb  as  it  had  been  slain." 

On  this  subject  there  is  positive  proof. 

1.  In  the  xvi  Sermon  on  the  Nativity  (vol.  i,  of  the  Angl.  Cath.  Lib. 
pp.   282  and  283,)  already  quoted  in  this  defence,   p.   14,  Bishop  Andrewes 
compares,  as  he  does  also  again  in  other  places,  the  union  of  the  sign  with 
the  thing  signified  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  to  Ihe  union  of  the  Divine  and  Human 
Natures  in  the  one  Person  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.      He  uses  the  argument 
negatively  against  Transubstantiation,  and  positively  for  the  Sacramental  union 
of  the  sign  and  the  thing  signified,  by  means  of  consecration  and  before  re- 
ception. 

2.  The   thing   signified,   signatum,   res   Sacramenti,    is    with    Bishop 
Andrewes.  not  merely  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  but  "Christ  Himself." 

In  the  famous  passage  on  Eucharistic  adoration,  already  given  in  full, 
(p.  22-24,)  which  the  Churchman  did  not  allude  to,  he  says: 

"Christ  Himself  the  inward  part  of  the  Sacrament,  in  and  with  the  Sacrament,  out  01 
and  withoyt  the  Sacrament,  wheresoever  he  is,  is  to  be  adored." 

Let  it  be  noted  also  that  this  statement  is  from  a  controversial  Treatise, 
and  not  merely  from  a  Sermon. 

So  too  in  the  xvi  Sermon  on  the  Nativity,  from  which  we  have  just 
quoted,  he  says: 

"  For  there  (in  the  Holy  Mysteries)  we  do  not  gather  to  Christ,  nor  of  Christ,  but  we 
gather  Christ  Himself,  and  gathering  Him,  we  shall  gather  the  ttee  and  fruit  and  all  upon 
it." 

So  too  in  the  xii  Sermon  of  the  Nativity  (pp  213  and  214,  vol.  i,  Angl. 
Cath.  Lib.): 

"  The  Sacrament  we  shall  have  besides,  and  if  the  Sacrament  we  may  well  say,  Hoc 
erit  signum.  For  a  sign  it  is,  and  by  it,  inTenietis  Puerum,  'ye  shall  find  this  child.'  For  find- 
ing His  flesh  and  blood  ye  cannot  miss  \>u\.find  Him  too.  And  a  sign  not  much  from  this  here. 
For  Christ  in  the  Sacrament  is  not  altogether  unlike  Christ  in  the  cratch.  To  the  cratch  we  may 
well  liken  the  husk  or  outward  symbols  of  it.  Outwardly  it  seems  of  little  worth,  but  it  is 
rich  of  contents,  as  was  the  crib  this  day  with  Christ  in  it.  For  what  are  they  but  infirnta, 
et  egena  elementa  'weak  and  poor  elements  of  themselves  ?'  Yet  in  THEM  FIND  WE  CHRIST. 
Even  as  they  did  this  day  inprtesepijumentorttntpanem  angelorum,"'m  the  beasts  crib  the 
food  of  angels,"  which  very  food  our  signs  both  represent  and  present." 

And  lastly  and  conclusively  in  the  gth  Sermon  of  the  Resurrection  (vol.ii, 
Angl.  Cath.  Lib.,  p.  340,): 

"  Not  to  do  it  (bow)  at  His  name  ?  Not  at  the  Holy  Mysteries  themselves,  not  to  do  it. 
Where  His  name  is,  I  am  sure  and  more  than  His  name,  even  the  Body  and  Blood  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and  these  NOT  WITHOUT  His  SOUL  ;  NOR  THAT  WITHOUT  His  DBITY  ; 
nor  all  these  without  inestimable  high  benefits  of  grace  attending  on  them." 


-54- 

Therefore  with  Bishop  Andrewes  in  His  thanksgiving  after  the  commun- 
ion (see  devotions)  we  will  pray. 

"  It  is  finished  and  done,  so  far  as  in  our  power,  Christ  our  God,  the  mystery  of  Thy  dis- 
pensation. For  we  have  held  remembrance  of  Thy  death,  we  have  seen  the  figure  of  thy 
Resurection,  we  have  been  filled  with  Thy  endless  life." 

In  the  article  in  question  there  is  also  a  criticism  upon  the  phrase  "under 
the  form  of  bread  and  wine." 
Bishop  Andrewes  says : 

"  The  terms  sous  les  tspece*  or  dans  Us  especes  sacramentales  (under  the  forms)  it 
would  pose  the  Cardinal  (Perron)  and  all  the  whole  college  to  find  ihey  were  ever  heard  or 
dreamt  of  in  St.  Augustine's  time  or  many  hundred  years  afterwards."  [Minor  Works,  p. 
14,  Lib.  Angl.  Cath.  Theo.J 

The  quotation  is  a  correct  one.  But  it  must  be  noticed  that  it  is  no  argument 
against  the  use  of  the  words  in  a  proper  way  Cardinal  Perron  uses  them 
in  proof  of  Transubstantiation.  Bishop  Andrewes  replies  they  do  not  prove  it 
because  they  are  not  ancient  words.  He  took  the  Cardinal's  terms  in  the 
sense  in  which  the  Cardinal  used  them,  of  accidents  of  which  the  substance 
was  gone.  In  this  sense  the  phrase  "  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine"  is 
equivalent  to  Transubstantiation ;  and  in  this  sense  I  have  not  used  it. 
There  is  authority  for  it  however  in  the  Church  of  England  in  the  true 
sense,  as  denoting  a  spiritual  Presence  in  Sacramental  Union  with  the  Holy 
Elements. 

Down  to  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  century  while  it  was  held  that  the 
"  Body  of  Christ  is  truly  and  principally  in  the  Sacrament  under  the  form  of 
bread  and  wine,"  it  was  still  an  open  question  whether  the  substance  of  bread 
remained  or  no.  Cranmer  and  Ridley  were  familiar  with  the  expression  in 
the  writings  of  Bertram  as  denoting  a  Presence,  the  substance  of  bread  and 
wine  still  remaining.  Used  and  disused  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII,  Cranmer 
and  the  other  Bishops  brought  back  the  language  at  the  end  of  the  first  Book 
of  Homilies.  ''Hereafter  shall  follow  sermons  of  the  Nativity,  Passion,  Re- 
surrection, and  Ascension  of  our  Saviour  Christ;  of  the  due  receiving  of  His 
Blessed  Body  and  Blood  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine  "  And  after 
the  interval  of  the  reign  of  Queen  Mary,  the  Bishops  in  the  beginning  of  the 
reign  of  Elizabeth,  refer  to  that  notice  in  the  title  to  the  second  Book  of  Hom- 
ilies, "of  such  matters  as  were  promised  and  entituled  in  the  former  Book  of 
Homilies."  Nor  will  it  do  to  dispose  of  this  matter  in  the  cavalier  way  in 
which  Canon  Trevor  gets  rid  of  it,  by  saying  that  it  has  only  the  authority  of 
the  King's  Printer;  and  that  the  Homily  when  it  appeared  did  not  bear  this 
title,  (note  p.  90,)  for  though  the  latter  fact  is  true,  the  first  Book  of  Homilies  has 
since  its  publication  beeu  twice  revised,  but  this  theological  statement  has  not 
been  interfered  with.  The  same  form  moreover  appears  in  Queen  Elizabeth's 
Primer,  which  was  a  revision  of  that  of  Henry  VIII,  and  while  one  word  was 
altered  in  the  sentence  in  which  the  phrase  "  under  the  form  of  bread  and 
wine  "  occurs, that  phrase  itself  was  not  altered.  The  words  are: 

"  Our  Saviour  and  Redeemer,  Jesu  Christ,  which  in  Thy  Last  Supper  with  thine  Apostles 
didst  deliver  Thy  Blessed  Body  and  Blood  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine."  [Private 
Prayers  set  forth  by  authority  during  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  p.  87,  Parker  Society.] 

It  is  true  that  the  same  Primer  when  printed  again  in  1566  dropped  the 
phrase,  but  it  occurs  in  varying  senses  in  Bishop  Nicholson's  Treatise  on  the 
Catichism  (p.  178,  Angl.  Cath.  Lib.)  in  Sherlock's  Practical  Christian  (p.  252, 
Oxford  1844,)  and  in  Sutton's  (lodly  Meditations  on  the  Most  Holy  Sacrament 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  (p.  28,  edition  of  1844-) 

Indeed  Mr.  Stephens,  the  counsel  against  Mr.  Bennett,  while  arguing  that 
the  phrase  as  used  in  the  English  Church  does  not  bear  out  Mr.  Bennett's 
view,  is  constrained  to  acknowledge : 

"  It  has  not  been  contended  by  the  Counsel  in  this  case  that  the  phrase  -'  under  the 
form  of  bread  and  wine,'  does  per  se  express  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  ;  but  that 
the  phrase  has  always  expressed  the  doctrine  of  the  real  Presence  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ  in  the  Elements,  which  is  a  different  doctrine  from  Transubstantiation."  [Argument 
of  A  J.  Stephens,  Q.  C.  etc.,  in  Shepard  vs.  Bennett,  pp.  36  and  37.] 


-55- 

It  must  also  be  noted  that  both  the  Court  of  Arches  and  the  Judicial  Com 
mittee  of  the  Privy  Council  decided  that  these  words  did  not  contravene  the 
articles  of  the  faith.  As  expressing  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  and 
only  so,  have  I  used  them. 

Since  writing  the  above  I  have  read  the  editorial  in  the  Churchman  of 
March  I4th  upon  Bishop  Andrewes.  The  writer  shows  conclusively  enough 
what  Bishop  Andrewes'  views  as  to  the  Sacrifice  were,  and  gives  full  quota- 
tions in  proof. 

To  prove  his  second  point,  that  Bishop  Andrewes  did  not  believe  in  the 
Presence  of  Christ's  glorified  Humanity,  in  Sacramental  Union  with  the  Holy 
Elements,  the  writer  makes  no  allusion  to  any  one  of  the  quotations  we 
have  given;  but  simply  repeats  the  solitary  passage  from  Sermon  vii  on  the 
Resurrection,  quoted  in  the  previous  article,  and  which  we  have  already  an- 
swered. Christ  Himself  according  to  Bishop  Andrewes  is  the  inward  part  of 
the  Sacrament,  present  as  a  Sacrifice  representatively,  present  in  His  glorified 
Humanity,  to  feed  us  with  Himself. 

In  Note  C  the  Editor  repeats  the  story,  that  the  quotation  made  by  myself 
in  the  General  Convention  was  an  incorrect  quotation.  The  writer  states  this 
on  the  authority  of  the  judgment  in  the  case  of  Shepard  vs.  Bennett  found  in 
the  work  entitled  "Six  Judgments,  etc"  and  "reprinted from  an  official  copy." 
The  writer  does  not  state,  however,  that  Mr.  Brooke's  "Six  Privy  Council 
Judgments,"  nowhere  gives  the  "Phillimore  Judgment,"  for  the  simple  reason 
that  it  was  not  a  judgment of 'the  Privy  Council at a//,  but  of  the  Court  of  Arches. 

I  could  not,  I  must  repeat,  have  quoted  from  the  "  Privy  Council  Judge- 
ment" in  October,  1871,  because  it  was  not  delivered  till  Jtme,  1872.  My 
quotation  is  taken  from  the  "Judgement  delivered  by  the  Rt.  Hon.  Sir  Robert 
Phillimore,  D.  C.  L.  Official  Principal  of  the  Arches  Court  of  Canterbury,  in 
the  case  of  the  office  of  the  Judge  promoted  by  Shepard  vs.  Bennett,"  edited 
by  Walter  G.  F,  Phillimore",  B.  C.  L.,  the  son  of  Sir  Robert,  and  published 
by  the  Rivington's  in  1870.  The  preface  states  that  it  is  "published  with  the 
permission  of  the  Judge."  The  second  Edition  of  the  Phillimore  Judgement, 
published  in  1871,  when  a  year's  time  had  been  given  to  correct  the  mistake, 
if  it  were  one,  has  the  same  words,  and  there  is  not  the  slightest  reason  to 
doubt  their  accuracy. 


IV. 

PRIVATE    ABSOLUTION. 

In  the  Document,  "Principles,  not  Men,"  nothing  is  said  about  Absolu- 
tion. Nothing,  too,  was  said  upon  the  floor  of  the  House,  except  what  I  may 
nave  said  myself  upon  the  subject.  I  might,  therefore,  pass  it  over,  and  yet 
it  seems  as  if  the  subject  were  incompletely  stated,  without  mentioning  it. 

It  ought  to  be  said,  that  it  is  generally  believed,  that  the  views  of  the  three 
Professors  are  the  same  as  my  own  on  this  subject,  and  it  was  a  fact 
which  was  evident  to  all,  that  in  attacking  me  on  the  subject  of  Confes- 
sion, they  did  not  object  either  to  Confession  or  Absolution,  but  to  their  own 
travesty  of  what  I  hold,  or  to  some  supposed  irregular  exercise  on  my  part  of 
an  undoubted  function  of  the  priestly  office. 

I.  Let  me  say,  that  while  I  cannot  but  blush  that  the  ignorance  of 
people,  and  the  want  of  fairness  of  much  modern  controversy  should  compel 
one  to  say  it;  I  firmly  believe  that  no  one  can  forgive  sins  save  Almighty 


God.     To  Him  only  doth  it  appertain.     Nor  in  anything  that  I  say  about  Ab- 
solution do  I  mean  to  limit  the   privilege  of  the  sinner,  to  go  with  the  burden  , 
of  his  sins  directly  to  God,  and  in  proportion  to  his  penitence,  receive  forgive- 
ness from  his  Father  in  Heaven. 

2.     I  also  believe  that  the  "Son  of  man  hath  power  on  earth  to  forgive 
sins,"  and  ordinarily  exercises   that  power  by    His    Priests  and  in  His  Sacra- 


-56— 

ments.  I  believe  in  "one  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins."  I  believe  that 
in  the  Holy  Eucharist  "we  and  all  Thy  whole  Church  obtain  remission  of  our 
sins  and  all  other  benefits  of  His  Passion."  I  hold  too,  in  the  words  of  the 
Homily  of  "Common  Prayer  and  Sacraments,"  that  absolution,  "although  no 
such  Sacrament  as  Baptism  and  the  Communion,"  still  has  "the  promise  of  the 
forgiveness  of  sin." 

I  firmly  believe  also  what  our  Lord  said  to  His  apostles  and  what  the 
Church  has  said  to  her  priests  ever  since,  whatever  form  of  words  may 
be  used  in  ordination,  ''Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit  they  are  remitted  unto  them, 
and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain  they  are  retained."  In  other  words,  whenever 
God's  ministers,  in  public  or  in  private,  in  the  two  Sacraments  or  in  Absolution, 
according  to  God's  word,  and  on  the  conditions  which  He  has  prescribed, 
namely  repentance  and  faith,  tell  a  penitent  that  God  forgives  him, 
God  confirms  the  word  of  His  ambassadors  and  does  forgive.  In  short,  I  do 
not  believe  all  the  solemn  things  the  Bible  and  Prayer  Book  say  about  absolu- 
tion, to  be  a  mere  sham.  The  form  of  words  by  which  Absolution  is  pro- 
nounced is  immaterial.  It  may  be  precatory,  or  indicative,  or  declaratory; 
the  only  point  is  that  if  it  prays,  God  answers ;  if  it  indicates,  it  is  God,  not 
man  who  indicates ;  if  it  declares,  the  declaration  carries  with  it,  what  the 
declaration  implies.  An  individual  Christian,  a  father,  a  mother,  a  friend,  a 
teacher,  does  not  hesitate  under  certain  circumstances  to  assure  a  broken  and 
contrite  heart,  that  the  merciful  Father  pardons  him  for  Jesus'  sake;  and  if  one 
of  the  royal  Priesthood  can  do  so,  much  more,  and  with  another  and  higher 
authority,  the  Priest  who  is  set  apart  to  do  this  very  work. 

I  dare  say  that  most  Churchmen  will  agree  wtth  me  thus  far,  I  come  now 
to  the  point  of  difficulty.  Can  a  Priest  in  the  American  Church  pronounce 
a  private  Absolution  ?  I  answer  yes  ;  and  while  I  grant  that  the  subject  is  a 
difficult  one,  I  believe  my  reasons  must  satisfy  any  thoughtful  Churchman. 

The  English  Prayer  Book  says,  as  quoted  in  the  Defence  p,  35,  that  if  a 
man's  conscience  is  troubled  he  can  go  to  his  Minister,  not  only  for  counsel 
and  advice,  but  also  for  the  "benefit  of  Absolution."  In  the  "Visitation  of  the 
sick,"  in  the  same  Prayer  Book,  it  is  said,  "Here  shall  the  sick  person  be 
moved  to  make  a  special  confession  of  his  sins,  if  he  feel  his  conscience  trou- 
bled with  any  weighty  matter,  after  which  confession  the  priest  shall  absolve 
him  (if  he  humbly  and  heartily  desire  it),  after  this  sort : 

"Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  hath  left  power  to  His  Church  to  absolve  all  sinners  who 
truly  repent  and  believe  in  Him,  of  His  great  mercy  forgive  thee  thine  offences  :  And  by  His 
authority  committed  to  me,  I  absolve  thee  from  all  thy  sins.  In  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost — Amen. 

But  in  the  exhortation  to  the  Communion  in  the  American  Prayer  Book, 
the  words  "  benefit  of  absolution"  are  omitted,  and  the  rubric  in  the  Visi- 
tation of  the  Sick  is  also  left  out,  and  the  following  rubric  retained  : 

"  Then  shall  the  minister  examine  whether  he  repent  him  truly  of  his  former  sins,  and  be 
in  charity  with  all  the  world,  exhorting  him  to  forgive  from  the  bottom  of  his  heart  all  per- 
sons that  have  offended  him,  and  if  he  hath  offended  any  other,  to  ask  them  forgiveness  ;  and 
where  he  hath  done  injury  or  wrong  to  any  man,  that  he  make  amends  to  the  uttermost  of  his 
power,  &c," 

The  form  of  absolution  in  the  English  Prayer  Book  is  omitted. 

There  is,  however,  in  the  American  Prayer  Book  one  especial  direction 
in  regard  to  Private  Absolution,  which  is  not  found  in  the  English  Prayer  Book. 
In  the  purely  American  Service  for  the  Visitation  of  Prisoners  this  rubric  occurs: 

"  Then  shall  the  minister  examine  whether  he  repent  him  truly  of  his  sins,  exhorting  him 
to  a  particular  Confession  of  the  sin  for  which  he  is  condemned  ;  and  upon  Confession,  he 
shall  instruct  him  what  satisfaction  ought  to  be  made  to  those  whom  he  has  offended  thereby; 
and  if  he  knoweth  any  combinations  in  wickedness,  or  any  evil  practices  designed  against 
others,  let  him  be  admonished  to  the  utmost  of  his  power  to  discover  and  prevent  them." 
"After  his  Confession  the  Priest  shall  declare  to  him  the  pardoning  mercy  of  God,  in  the  form 
which  is  used  in  the  Communion  Service." 

The  common  argument  adduced  from  these  changes,  by  what  are  called 
moderate  Churchmen,  who  would  not  deny  Absolution  in  some  shape;  is  that 


-57- 

Private  Absolution  is  forbidden  in  the  American  Church,  and  that  the  special 
provision  provided  for  it  in  the  Visitation  of  Prisoners,  is  the  exception  that 
proves  the  rule. 

Another  view  is  taken  by  Mr.  Hugh  Davy  Evans  (Am.  Edition  of  the 
Theoph.  Amer.  p.  149).  He  holds  that  the  English  Church  encourages,  but 
the  American  discourages  private  absolution.  The  exact  force  of  the  view  of 
Mr.  Evans  it  is  difficult  to  see.  Either  the  American  Church  forbids  it,  or  she 
does  not.  If  she  permits  it  at  all,  she  must  permit  it  in  all  cases  where  it  is  right 
o  administer  it.  To  say  that  she  discourages  it  then,  is  either  equivalent  to 
the  statement  that  she  forbids  it,  fwith  the  one  exception  of  the  case  of  Visi- 
tation of  Prisoners,  when  she  commands  it)  or  else  it  must  mean  that  she  per- 
mits private  Absolution,  whenever  she  permits  private  Confession.  I  purpose 
now  to  state  the  very  great  difficulties  which  the  view  that  the  Church  forbids 
private  absolution,  involves. 

1.  The  Preface  to  the  Prayer  Book  states  that  "this  Church  is  far  from 
intending  to  depart  from  the  Church  of  England  in  any  essential  point   of 
doctrine,  discipline  or  worship,  or  further  than  local   circumstances  require." 
The  Church  of  England  commands  private  absolution  in  certain  cases  •  if  the 
American  Church  forbids  it,  she  either  is  not  true  to  the  principle  above  laid 
down,  or  private  absolution  is  not  an  "essential  point  of  discipline,"  which 
those  who  oppose  it,  will  scarcely  grant,  any  more  than  those   who  favour  it 

2.  It  asserts  the  very  grave  principle,  that  omission  implies  prohibition 
Private  absolution  is  nowhere  forbidden  in  the  American  Church,  the  two 
places  where  it  is  spoken  of  in  the  English   Prayer  Book  are  left  out    and 
therefore  it  is  argued  that  it  is  forbidden.     Are  those  who  maintain  this  view 
prepared  to  say  that  the  Athanasian  creed,  the  Magnificat,  and  the    Nunc 
Dimittis  are  prohibited  by  the  American  Church,  or  even  that  their  recitation 
or  use  at  some  special  service  is  forbidden  ?     When  the  Church  catechism 
leaves  out  the  word  "elect,"   in  the  answer,  "who  sanctifies  me  and  all  the 
elect  people  of  God,"  does  she  mean  to  prohibit  the  view  that  all  baptized 
people  are  "elect."     When  she  omits  the  rubric  at  the  end   of  the  marriage 
service  in  the  English  Prayer  Book,  "It  is  convenient  that  the  new  married 
persons  should  receive  the  holy  Communion  at  the  time  of  their  marriage  or 
at  the  first  opportunity  after  their  marriage,"  does  she  mean  to  forbid  this 
blessing    to  "  new    married   persons."     When  she  omits   at  the  end  of  the 
service  for  the  public  Baptism  of  Infants,  the  solemn  declaration : 

"It  is  certain  by  God's  word,  that  children  which  are  baptized,   dying  before  they  com- 
mit actual  sin,  arc  undoubtedly  saved," 

Does  she  mean  to  forbid  this  comforting  assurance  ?  When  she  leaves  out 
the  famous  Black  rubric  at  the  end  of  the  Communion  office,  does  she  mean 
to  assert  the  opposite  of  that  the  Black  rubric  declares  and  means  when  she 
requires  her  children  to  kneel  at  the  Holy  Communion,  viz.,  "that  adoration  is 
intended  and  ought  to  be  done,  to  the  Sacramental  bread  and  wine  there 
bodily  received,"  or  to  "a  corporeal  Presence  of  Christ's  flesh  and  blood?" 
It  is  a  dangerous  thing  to  assert  that  omission  means  prohibition. 

3.  It  does  not  take  into  account  the  exact  character  of  the  omissions 
and  if  they  mean  prohibition,  puts  the  Church,  our  mother,  in  a  light  which 
would  be  ludicrous  were  it  not  so  pitiable. 

a.  In  the  exhortation  to  the  Holy  Communion  in  the  American  Prayer  Book 

the  penitent  requires  further  "comfort  or  counsel"  he  is  to  go  to  God's  min- 
ster and  open  his  grief,  that  he  may  receive  soak  godly  counsel  and  advice  as 
may  tend,  etc.  In  other  words,  according  to  this  view,  the  penitent  is  to  ask 
for  two  things  (i)  comfort,  (2)  counsel,  and  is  to  get  nothing  back  but  counsel 
and  advice.  The  Pnest  is  to  say  to  him,  I  can  give  you  counsel,  but  I  cannot 
give  you  the  comfort  of  assuring  you  that  your  sins  are  forgiven.  In  short  the 
penitent  is  to  ask  for  bread  and  receive  a  stone. 

b.    According  to  this  view,  a  man  who  has  disgraced  himself  and  his  coun. 


—58— 

try,  and  is  shut  up  in  prison,  provided  he  is  penitent ;  can  receive  a  blessing, 
which  a  sick  man  imprisoned  in  his  own  home  by  mortal  illness,  and  needing 
and  desiring  the  blessing  just  as  much,  because  he  is  not  a  public  criminal,  can 
not  have. 

c  Though  the  Church  gives  to  her  Priests  the  power  to  remit  and  re- 
tain sins  in  her  ordination  office,  and  never  by  any  canon  limits  that  power, 
save  only  as  God  limits  it ;  she  nevertheless,  according  to  this  view,  with  the 
solitary  exception  of  the  happy  criminals,  never  permits  a  Priest  to  exercise 
this  function  of  his  office  except  in  public  worship;  and  one  to  whom  the  awe- 
ful  trust  is  committed  of  guiding  struggling  souls  to  the  Cross  of  Jesus,  can 
never  tell  them  they  are  forgiven,  except  with  his  surplice  on,  in  the  presence 
of  a  congregation. 

d.  This  view  makes  the  Church  guilty  of  a  piece  of  dissembling.  In 
the  visitation  of  the  sick  she  requires  the  Priest  to  "examine"  whether  the  sick 
person  "repent  him  truly  of  his  former  sins,"  etc.  This,  of  course,  in  some 
cases  must  involve  confession.  She  then  immediately  after,  in  the  very 
place  where  the  absolution  comes  in  the  English  Prayer  Book,  instructs  the 
Priest  to  say  over  the  sick  person  the  prayer  beginning,  "O,  most  merciful 
God,  who  according  to  the  multitude  of  Thy  mercies  dost  so  put  away  the  sins 
of  those  who  truly  repent,"  etc.  But  this  prayer  is  nothing  more  or  less  than 
the  "reconciliation  of  a  penitent  near  death"  found  in  the  Sacramentary  of 
Gelasius,  A.  D.  494,  with  which  the  Church  of  God  forgave  her  dying  peni- 
tents, and  which  was  used  in  theEnglish  Church  long  before  the  indicative 
form  of  absolution  was  ever  heard  of.  The  American  Church  then  on  this  view 
forbids  private* Absolution,  while  at  the  same  time  she  surreptitiously  absolves 
her  dying  penitents. 

I  submit  that  the  difficulties  of  this  view  are  so  great  that  no  plain,  simple- 
hearted  man  can  possibly  accept  it,  if  there  be  any  other  reasonable  explanation 
of  the  omissions.  I  venture  to  suggest  that  the  most  they  can  be  shown  clearly  to 
prove,  is  that  the  Church  thereby  in  consequence  of  the  "local  circumstances 
of  the  American  Church"  intended  to  give  no  approval  to  the  mediaeval  form 
of  absolution  with  the  words,  "I  absolve  thee,"  therein,  as  found  in  the  Eng- 
lish office  for  the  visitation  of  the  sick  ;  and  that  she  did  not  in  any  sense  in- 
tend to  forbid  private  absolution,  by  some  other  form  of  words,  not  so  liable 
to  misconstruction. 


V. 

The  following  letter  to  Bishop  Armitage  was  written  early  in  June 
1871.  It  is  published  because  it  explains  the  whole  question  referred  to  in 
the  Defence.  To  it  as  one  might  expect  the  Bishop  made  no  reply  and  the 
matter  came  to  an  end. 

Rt.  Rev.  and  Dear  Bishop- 

Inthe  course  of  the  conversation  I  had  with  you,  vou  desired  me  to  promise  you,  that  I 
would  not  hear  the  confession  of  any  Candidate  for  fioly  Orders  in  the  Diocese  of  Wisconsin 
without  your  permission,  nor  the  Confession  of  any  Candidate  of  any  other  Diocese,  being  a 
student  of  Nashotah,  without  the  permission  of  the  Bishop  of  such  student. 

Your  action  was  based  upon  a  correspondence  which  had  passed  between  me  and  Dr. 
Adams,  in  which  he  had  made  certain  accusations  against  me,  and  which,  as  I  thought  he 
had  no  right  to  make  any  complaint,  I  had  courteously  declined  to  respond  to  ;  and  upon  a 
resolution  passed  by  the  Faculty  of  Nashotah  which  accuses  me,  "  of  an  unauthorized  and 
illegal  intrusion  upon  the  spiritual  and  pastoral  care  of  the  Candidates,"  in  having  allowed 
"  several  of  the  students,  Candidates  of  this  Diocese  and  of  others,"  to  resort  to  me  "for 
private  confession  and  absolution,"  without  the  knowledge  and  express  sanction  of  their 
Bishops. 

Permit  me  to  say,  first,  that  with  the  exception  of  two  young  men,  one  now  in  orders, 
who  were  for  many  years  under  my  care,  and  whom  I  had  trained  from  childhood,  I  have 
never  heard  the  confession  of  but  one  Candidate  of  the  Diocese  of  Wisconsin^  He  came  to 
me  because  he  was  sent  to  me  by  his  former  Pastor,  a  clergymau  « horn  you  know  and 
value  ;  but  I  felt  it  best  for  him  to  advise  him,  so  soon  as  I  knew  you  were  making  special 
exertions  for  your  Candidates,  to  go  to  yourself  for  Spiritual  assistance — advice  which  he  was 
quite  ready  to  follow. 


—59— 

I  hare  heard  the  confessions  of  two  persons  who  are  Candidates  from  other  Dioceses,  and 
of  two  other  persons,  students  at  Xashotah,  one  of  whom  may  possibly  be  a  Candidate.  One 
of  these  was  a  graduate  of  Racine  College,  who  had  been  long  under  my  care,  and  the  others 
either  sought  me  out,  or  were  sent  to  me  by  others.  One  of  these  four  was  the  student  in 
the  Preparatory  Department  at  Nashotah,  especially  mentioned  in  Dr.  Adams's  letter 
Finding  he  desired  to  come  to  me,  I  went  at  once  to  Dr.  Cole,  told  him  of  the  Confessions  I 
had  heard,  was  assured  by  him  that  I  had  his  consent  to  do  good  in  that  way ;  and  with  that 
consent  freely  given,  I  heard  the  confession  of  the  youth  in  question. 

I  mention  these  facts  not  to  excuse  my  hearing  confessions  of  persons  who  have  come  to 
me,  but  to  show  that  I  have  not  sought  out  persons  for  this  purpose,  and  thus  been  guilty  of 
obtruding  myself,  or  of  offering  my  services,  or  as  depreciating  others,  or  setting  up  myself 
as  a  guide  unbidden. 

The  question  however  is,  as  to  whom,  a  person  who  by  the  means  laid  down  in  the  Ex- 
hortation to  the  Communion  office,  cannot  quiet  his  own  conscience,  "  but  requireth  further 
comfort  or  counsel;"  has  %right  to  go  for  such  comfort  and  counsel. 

The  words  are  "  Let  him  come  to  me  or  to  some  other  minister  of  God's  vtord,  and 
open  his  grief  that  he  may  receive"  &c.  I  had  supposed  that  there  could  be  no  question  as  to 
whether,  a  person  troubled  in  conscience,  in  case  he  did  not  wish  to  go  to  his  own  Pastor, 
might  not  choose  the  clergyman  to  whom  he  would  go.  The  words  of  the  Prayer  Book  state 
it  distinctly,  I  do  not  know  how  they  can  be  twisted  to  mean  anything  else — and  they  are  so 
I  believe  generally  accepted. 

Some  t  jfenty  years  ago  the  Rev.  T.W.  Allies,  either  then,  or  shortly  afterwards  a  pervert 
to  the  Church  of  Rome,  took  the  ground  that  a  Priest  not  the  Parish  Priest  of  the  Penitent, 
hearing  a  confession,  had  no  jurisdiction.  He  was  Jnswered  most  conclusively  by  Dr  '  Pusey 
in  a  letter  entitled  "  The  Church  of  England  leaves  her  children  free  to  whom  to  open  their 
griefs."  In  this  letter  it  was  shown,  that  when  the  Church  of  England  abolished  compulsory 
confession,  she  also  gave  her  children  the  further  freedom  to  choose  whom  they  would  con- 
fide in. 

The  Church  of  Rome  indeed,  although  she  permits  a  multitude  of  exceptions,  has  a  rule 
restricting  her  people;  but  I  suppose  the  Xashotah  Clergy,  though  sometimes  accused  (I  am 
happy  to  think  falsely)  of  Romanism,  would  hardly  feel  our  clergy  to  be  bound  by  them. 

Among  the  numerous  authorities  for  this  view  quoted  by  Dr.  Pusey.  I  will  merely  ad- 
duce two. 

Dean  Comber  says :  "with  us  it  [confession]  is  restricted  to  its  primitive  use ;  for  we 
direct  all  men  always  to  confess  to  God  but  some  also  to  confess  their  faults  and  reveal  their 
doubts  to  the  Priest,  especially  in  these  three  cases,  (i)  When  we  were  disgusted  with  the 
.  guilt  of  some  sin  already  committed,  or  (2)  when  we  cannot  conquer  some  lust  or  passion,  or 
13)  when  we  are  afflicted  with  any  intricate  scruple,  particularly  whether  we  may  not  be  fit 
to  receive  this  Blessed  Sacrament  or  no.  If  any  of  these  be  our  case  then  first  we  must 
choose  prudently,  preferring  our  own  minister,  if  he  be  tolerably  fitted,  or  else  we  may  elefl 
another  that  is  prudent  and  pious,  learned  and  jueicious.  One  who  may  manage  this  weighty 
concern  gravely  and  privately  and  despatch  it  wisely  and  fully  to  our  satisfaction."  Again 
Jeremy  Taylor  in  the  "  Holy  Dying"  says  :  "Whether  they  be  many  or  few  that  are  sent  to 
the  sick  person  let  the  Curate  of  his  Parish  or  his  <rzon  Confessor  be  among  them." 

In  Bishop  Cosin's  devotions  which  was,  when  I  was  a  Tutor  at  Nashotah,  and  I  fancy  is 
still,  the  book  of  devotions  recommended  to  the  students,  "among  the  precepts  of  the  Church" 
is  set  down  "  To  receive  the  blessed  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Chnst,  with  fre- 
quent devotion  and  three  times  a  year  at  least,  of  which  times  Easter  to  be  always  one  And 
for  better  preparation  thereunto,  as  occasion  is,  to  disburthen  and  quiet  our  consciences  ol 
those  sins  that  may  geieve  us,  or  scruples  that  may  trouble  us,  to  a  learned  and  discreet 
Priest  and  from  him  to  receive  advice  and  the  benefit  of  absolution."  Is  it  wonderful  that 
some  of  the  students  of  Nashotah  should  have  wished  to  practise  what  so  great  a  Bishop  com- 
mends, and  what  the  authorized  book  of  devotions  at  Xashotah  enjoins.  Nor  is  there  any 
authority  for  supposing  as  I  heard  you  say  some  one  had  suggested,  (even  had  it  been  retained 
in  our  American  Prayer  Book),  thathe  word  'idiscreet"  in  the  English  Prayer  Book  limited 
the  authority  to  one  especially  set  apart  to  hear  confessions.  There  is  no  authority  for  such 
an  interpretation.  No  such  persons  were  ever  appointed  in  the  Church  of  England,  and  while 
there  are  visitation  articles  of  Bishops  which  refer  to  the  subject  of  confession,  including  men 
like  Andrewes,  and  Overall,  and  at  least  one  canon  since  the  Reformation  (in  1603)  has  been 
passed  upon  the  same  subject,  the  authority  of  the  Priest  has  never,  either  in  England  or  in 
this  Country,  in  this  respect  been  limited. 

The  question  next  arises.     Is  a  Candidate  for  Holy  Orders,  in  the  matter  in  question,  in 


he  will.      A  Deacon  and  a  Priest  who  are  much  more  closely  bound  to  a  Bishop  than  a  Can- 
didate have  the  same  freedom,  nor  does  the  Candidate  ever  surrender  his  right. 

I  think  it  eminently  desirable  that  the  relations  of  a  Bishop  to  his  Candidates  should  be 
such  as  would  always  induce  a  Candidate  to  go  to  him  for  su-h  assistance.  I  am  happy  to 
know  that  you  endeavour  to  make  them  so.  Ever}-  loyal  Presbyter  would  do  what  I  have 
already  done,  in  the  case  of  the  one  Candidate  from  this  Diocese  1  have  mentioned  :  and  thus 
do  the  utmost  to  assist  the  Bishop  in  his  efforts.  Such  a  course  I  should  always  under  sim- 
ilar circumstances  feel  it  right  to  pursue.  You  yourself  appeared  to  feel  that  in  the  case  of 


—60- 

Institution  could  —  disregarding  the  Prayer  Book  —  make  a  law  that  no  student  should  go  to 
confession  to  any  one  but  its  own  officers.  It  could  enforce  the  rule  by  pains  and  penalties. 
Such  a  rule  would  seem  for  a  multitude  of  reasons,  quite  independent  of  its  opposition  to  the 
Prayer  Book,  to  be  a  foolish  one.  It  often  happens  that  a  student  cannot  go  for  Spiritual 
purposes  to  those  who  are  engaged  in  instructing  him.  But  if  Nashotah  were  to  make  such 
a  rule,  and  a  student  were  to  enter  there  knowing  that  such  a  rule1  existed,  I  should  be  the 
last  person  to  encourage  him  in  disobedience.  Even  without  such  a  rule  one  would  be  most 
careful  to  assist  the  authorities  even  where  a  wish  only  were  expressed,  as  far  at  least  as 
possible. 

If  again  the  Presbyters  at  Nashotah  were  so  to  influence  their  students,  that  they  should 
at  once  be  drawn  to  them  for  spiritual  purposes,  every  faithful  Priest  would  feel  like  assisting 
them  in  this  blessed  work.  One  would  be  most  careful  still  further  not  to  do  any  thing  which 
might  disturb  the  relations  of  a  Candidate  to  his  Bishop.  But  with  these  limitations  and 
reservations  the  Candidate  has  the  right  to  disburthen  his  soul  to  whom  he  will,  and  any 
Priest  has  the  right  to  hear  him. 

I  write  these  things,  my  dear  Bishop,  as  they  are  presented  to  my  mind,  to  beg  of  you 
not  to  issue  any  command  to  me  upon  the  subject  nor  to  ask  of  me  any  promise.  I  think  you 
ought  not  to.  ist,  Because  by  saying  that  under  no  conceivable  circumstances  I,  and  so 
any  other  Priest,  must  hear  the  confession  of  a  candidate  for  Holy  Orders  in  this  Diocese, 
or  of  any  other  candidate,  you  are  limiting  the  lawful  rights  of  Candidates,  and  that  in  their 
highest  and  most  important  relations,  i.  e.  to  their  own  souls,  2d.  You  are  deterring  persons 
from  becoming  Candidates  in  this  Diocese  and  especially  from  going  to  Nashotah.  3d,  You 
are  so  far,  without  trial  suspending  me  and  others  also,  from  the  legitimate  exercise  of  one 
function  of  the  ministry,  a  function  too  rarely  used  I  fear.  Further,  by  asking  me  to  promise 
I  will  obey  such  a  command,  you  place  me  in  the  position  either  of  disobeying  you,  or  else 
that  I  should  be  forced  to  do  two  things,  ist,  that,  being  one  who  from  circumstances  has 
done  and  is  doing  more,  than  perhaps  any  other  single  person  in  the  Northwest,  in  directing 
the  minds  of  young  men  to  the  Candidateship  ;  I  nevertheless  deliberately  surrender  their 
rights  ;  and  2d,  which  is  more  important,  that  by  my  own  consent,  I  should  give  up  one  of  the 
duties  of  the  office  I  have  solemnly  pledged  myself  to  carry  out. 

There  is  another  reason  which  I  feel  I  have  a  right  to  urge.  For  nearly  seventeen 
years,  first  as  Tutor  in  Ecclesiastical  History  at  Nasnotah,  then  as  head  of  the  preparatory 
department,  then  for  nearly  twelve  years  as  President  of  Racine  College,  I  have  been  labor- 
ing to  build  up  a  high  tone  amongst  those  preparing  to  become  Candidates  for  Holy  Orders. 
You  know  —  what  from  the  day  I  came  to  this  Diocese  I  have  known,  that  there  has  been, 
and  is  much,  need. 

I  have  been  struggling  to  make  those  whom  I  have  had  under  my  charge  what  they 
ought  to  be,  and  by  God's  blessing  I  have,  I  trust,  been  successful  and  am  yearly  more  and 
more  so.  High  scholarship  —  gentlemanly  bearing,  true  honour,  loving  penitence  and  high- 
hearted devotion,  for  these  I  have  labored.  My  effort  to  assist  a  few  struggling  souls  who 
came  legitimately  under  my  influence  and  without  my  seeking,  has  been  a  part  of  this  ef- 
fort. I  had  no  reason  to  suppose  that  it  would  receive  a  formal  censure  from  Nashotah.  It 
had  the  express  approval  of  the  President  and  Pastor.  That  it  has  received  a  censure, 
at  once  discourteous  and  ungrateful,  I  must  bear  patiently;  but  this  I  beg—  under  these 
circumstances  —  do  not  allow  yourself,  my  Bishop,  who  ought  lovingly  to  sustain  me,  to  be 
made  a  scourge,  where  with  a  fellow-Presbyter  may  the  more  heavily  afflict  me.  In  the 
wider  interests  of  the  whole  church  something  more  maybe  said.  Not  every  Bisnop  is  fitted 
to  be  the  spiritual  adviser  of  his  candidates  ;  not  every  Bishop  is^  willing  to  be  so.  Even 
supposing  the  Bishop  to  be  all  that  he  ought  to  be,  willing  and  earnest,  one  can  easily  im- 
agine circumstances  in  which  the  candidate  could  not  go  to  him  ;  and  there  might  be  other 
cases  in  which  a  candidate  would  naturally  prefer  a  Pastor,  who  had  trained  him  from 
youth,  guided  him  through  boynood  and  early  manhood,  directed  his  attention  to  the  minis- 
try, and  been  to  him  by  God's  blessing  more  than  any  one  else. 

Believe  it  my  dear  Bishop,  in  so  sacred  a  matter  the  largest  liberty  with  a  candidate, 
and  the  broadest  toleration  within  the  limits  of  the  Prayer-Book  to  a  Presbyter,  will  be  the 
wisest  policy,  as  well  as  tend  most  to  the  salvation  of  souls. 

I  am,  affectionately  your  Son  in  Christ, 

JAMES  DE  KOVEN. 


VI. 

THE  PRAYERS  IN  THE  TREASURY  OF  DEVOTION. 

The  prayers  quoted  by  Dr.  Adams  from  the  Treasury  of  Devotion  were  as 
follows  pp.  10,  245  and  247: 

INTERCESSION; 

Almighty  and  Everlasting  God,  Who  hast  promised  to  hear  the  petitions  of  those  who  ask 
in  Thy  SON'S  Name,  I  commend  unto  Thee  my  Parents,  my  Brothers,  and  Sisters,  my  Wife 
or  Husband,  my  Children  and  Godchildren,  and  all  my  Relations,  Friends,  Dependants, 
and  those  for  whom  I  have  been  asked  to  pray.  Let  Thy  Fatherly  hand,  I  beseech  Thee, 
ever  be  over  them,  let  Thy  HOLY  SPIRIT  ever  be  with  them,  and  so  lead  them  in  the  knowl- 
edge and  obedience  of  Thy  word,  that  in  the  end  they  may  obtain  everlasting  life.  Pity,  O 


—61- 

LORD,  and  have  mercy  upon  all  men,  for  JBSUS  CHRIST'S  sake,  Who   with  Thee    and  the 
HOLY  GHOST,  liveth  and  reigneth,  ever  One  God,  world  without  end.    Amen. 

May  the  intercessions  of  the  holy  Mother  of  GOD,  of  the  Prophets,  of  the  holy  Apostles, 
of  the  Martyrs,  help  me !  May  all  the  Saints  and  Elect  of  GOD  pray  for  me,  that  I  may  be 
worthy  with  them  to  possess  the  Kingdom  of  God.  Amen. 

May  the  holy  Angels,  especially  my  own  Guardian,  keep  watch  around  me  throughout 
this  day,  to  protect  me  against  the  assaults  of  the  evil  one,  to  suggest  to  me  holy  thoughts,  to 
defend  me  against  all  dangers,  to  lead  me  in  the  perfect  way  of  peace,  and  to  bring  me  safe, 
at  length,  to  my  home  in  Heaven. 

MEMORIAL  OF  THE  BLESSED  VIRGIN. 

Antiphon;  The  HOLY  GHOST  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Highest 
shall  overshadow  Thee  :  therefore  also  that  holy  thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be 
called  the  SON  of  GOD. 

V     Blessed  art  thou  among  women. 

R     And  blessed  is  the  fruit  of  thy  womb. 

LET  US   PRAY. 

O  GOD,  Who  in  the  overshadowing  of  the  HOLY  GHOST  wert  conceived  in  the  womb  of 
a  human  mother,  still  a  Virgin,  who  gave  Thee  birth  and  nurtured  Thee  ;  and  Who,  laid  in 
her  bosom,  wert  presented  in  the  Temple  to  the  FATHER  an  Offering  and  Sacrifice  for  us  ; 
grant,  we  beseech  Thee,  that  we,  sharing  Thy  nature,  one  flesh  and  one  spirit  with  Thee, 
a  new  creation  in  Thyself,  may  be  made  like  unto  Thee  in  all  things  ;  and,  living  according 
to  Thy  holy  Will,  may  be  presented  a  living  sacrifice,  holy,  acceptable  to  GOD  through  Thy 
merits  and  perpetual  intercession  ;  to  Whom  be  glory  forever.  Amen. 

O  LORD  JESUS  CHRIST,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary  ;  teach  me  to  reverence  Thy  Holy 
Mother,  according  to  Thy  will.  Thou  didst  send  Thy  Angel  to  salute  her  as  highly  favour- 
ed, and  blessed  among  women,  meet  to  be  the  mother  of  GOD  by  the  operation  of  the  HOLY 
GHOST.  Thou  wast  subject  unto  her,  and  didst  commit  her  to  Thy  beloved  disciple,  saying, 
"Behold  thy  mother."  With  Thy  Angel,  I  would  give  her  praise  ;  with  Thyself  love  her  ; 
with  Thine  Apostle  honour  her.  Howsoever  Thy  Saints  have  profited  through  her  interces- 
sions, may  I  in  like  manner  profit;  through  Thee,  Who  with  the  FATHER  and  the  HOLY 
GHOST,  hvest  and  reignest,  One  GOD,  world  without  end.  Amen, 
OF  A  DOCTOR; 

Antiphon.  Light  eternal  shall  shine  on  Thy  Saints,  O  LORD,  and  length  of  days.  Al- 
leluia. 

V    Rejoice  in  the  LORD,  Oye  Righteous. 
R     For  it  becometh  well  the  just  to  be  thankful.    Alleluia. 
LET  US  PRAY. 

O  GOD,  Who  willedst  Thy  blessed  servant,  Saint  N.,  to  be  an  illustrious  Teacher  for 
the  instruction  and  edification  of  Thy  Holy  Church  ;  grant,  we  beseech  Thee,  that  as  on 
earth  he  taught  us  the  way  of  life,  so  now  he  may  plead  and  pray  for  us  in  Heaven  ;  through 
JESUS  CHRIST  our  LORD.  Amen. 

OF  A  VIRGIN  AND  MARTYR. 

Antiphon.  When  the  Bridegroom  came,  they  that  were  ready  went  in  with  Him  to  the 
marriage.  Alleluia. 

V    The  virgins  that  be  her  fellows. 

R    Shall  bear  her  company. 

LET  US   PRAY. 

Almighty  and  Everlasting  GOD,  Who  choosest  the  weak  things  of  the  world  to  confound 
the  wise  :  mercifully  grant  that  we,  who  celebrate  the  Festival  of  Thy  holy  servant,  Saint 
M.,  Virgin  (and  Martyr),  may  also  enjoy  the  advantage  of  her  prayers  in  our  behalf  before 
Thee  ;  through  JESUS  CHRIST  our  LORD.  Amen. 

The  Roman  doctrine  of  the  Invocation  of  Saints  involves  two  things, 
first,  that  we  may  pray  to  the  Saints,  secondly,  that  they  can  directly  help 
us.  Neither  of  these  views  are  to  be  found  in  these  prayers  in  the  Treasury 
of  Devotion.  1'hey  are  every  one  of  them  Prayers  to  God,  not  prayers  to  the 
Saints.  They  do  not  pray  that  the  saints  may  help  us,  but  only  that  we  may 
be  profited  by  their  prayers  to  God.  In  other  words  that  He  may  help  us  be- 
cause of  their  prayers.  They  are  exactly  in  the  line  of  the  Collect  for  St. 
Michael's  Day  in  the  Prayer  Book,  when  we  pray  to  God  to  give  us  the  suc- 
cour and  defence  of  the  Holy  Angels ;  with  the  difference  of  course,  that  all 
Christians  believe  of  the  angels,  that  they  are  "  ministering  spirits  sent  forth 
to  minister  unto  them  who  shall  be  heirs  of  salvation,"  which  may  not  be 
true  of  the  Saints. 

Perhaps  there  is  no  greater  instance  of  unfairness  in  controversy  than  the 
assertion  in  the  Church  Journal  of  Feb.  a6th,  that  the  Prayers  to  the  Saints 
and  angels  in  Mr.  Orby  Shipley's  "  Invocation  of  Saints  and  Angels"  "  are 
no  more  than  can  be  found  in  a  book  edited  by  Mr.  Carter  of  Clewer 


—62— 

"  The  Treasury  of  Devotion"  a  book  given  by  advanced  clergymen  very 
commonly  to  those  whom  they  spiritually  "direct"  &c." 

Either  the  Editor  had  never  examined  Mr.  Shipley's  Book  or  else  he  has 
ventured  to  rely  on  the  supposed  ignorance  of  his  readers  for  an  assertion  he 
cannot  prove.  The  Treasury  of  Devotion  only  contains  prayers  to  God  for 
the  intercession  of  the  Saints.  Mr.  Shipley's  book  is  full  of  Litanies  and 
Prayers  to  the  Saints  themselves,  and  whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  latter, 
to  state  that  the  former  are  like  them,  is  to  make  a  grave  misstatement. 

For  myself  I  heartily  subscribe  to  the  language  of  Dr.  Pusey  (letter  to 
the  Bishop  of  London  p.  101.)  though  I  am  not  sufficiently  familiar  with  Mr. 
Shipley's  book,  to  know  whether  it  has  such  expressions  in  it  as  are  here  con- 
demned. 

"  It  (the  Invocation  of  Saints)  however  it  may  be  explained  by  Roman 
Catholic  controversalists,  to  be  no  more  than  asking  the  prayers  of  members 
of  Christ,  now  in  the  flesh  ;  still,  in  use,  it  is  plainly  more ;  for  no  one  would 
ask  those  in  the  flesh  '  to  protect  us  from  the  enemy'  '  receive  us  in  the  hour 
of  death' '  lead  us  to  the  joy  of  heaven,'  'may  thy  (the  blessed  virgin) 
abundant  love  cover  the  multitude  of  sins,'  '  and  to  the  mind  which  asketh  thee 
give  the  gift  of  graces,'  or  use  any  of  the  direct  prayers  for  graces  which  God 
alone  can  bestow,  which  are  common  in  R.  C.  devotions  to  the  Blessed 
Virgin.  No  one  can  look  uncontroversially  at  such  occasional  addresses,  as 
there  are  to  martyrs  in  the  4th  century  (and  these  chiefly  prayers  at  their 
tombs  through  their  intercession  for  miraculous  aid  from  God,)  and  such  books 
as  the  'glories  of  Mary,  the  'Month  of  Mary,'  and  say,  that  the  character  of 
the  modern  reliance  on,  and  invocation  of  Saints,  was  that  of  the  Ancient 
Church."  But  such  just  criticisms  do  not  apply  in  any  sense  to  the  Prayers  in 
the  "  Treasury  of  Devotion  " 

Of  them  the  words  of  Bishop  Andrewes,  than  whom  no  one  has  written 
more  earnestly  against  the  Invocation  of  Saints,  are  evidently  true. 

"  While  the  Fathers  were  fully  persuaded  that  the  Saints  (no  matter 
where  they  were,)  still  were  interested  in  our  behalf,  and  in  their  way  kindly 
prayed  for  us ;  so  far  at  least  as  that  they  (the  Fathers)  could  be  aided  by  this 
cooperation  of  theirs,  and  by  their  intercessions  and  services.  Yet  it  was  not 
from  the  Saints  themselves  that  this  was  solicited,  but  always  from  God. 
But  to  ask  God  to  be  propitious  to  us  at  their  request,  this  reqttest  of  them  IS 
NOT  AN  INVOCATION  OF  THEM,  BUT  OF  GOD.  (Responsio  ad.  Card.  Bellar- 
mine  Lib.  Angl.  Cath.  Theo.  p.  60.) 

Thus  speaks  this  great  Bishop  who  seems  to  have  written  almost  as  much 
to  the  confusion  of  my  accusers,  as  of  Cardinal  Bellarmine. 

The  "Anima  C&rzj#"which  is  found  in  the  Treasury  of  Devotion,  was 
also  an  especial  point  of  attack  of  Dr.  Adams.  He  omitted  however  to  tell  his 
hearers  that  Bishop  Andrewes  himself  whose  works  are  spoken  of  in  "  Prin- 
ciples not  men"  as  one  of  the  "  text  Books"  of  high  churchmen  as  distinguish- 
ed from  the  "  advanced,"  made  use  of  this  prayer  with  the  following  altera- 
tions. 

PRAYER  OF  IGNATIUS  LOYOLA.  PRAYER  OF  BISHOP  ANDREWES. 

Anima  Christ!  Sanctifica  me  Anima  Christi  Sanctifica  me 

Corpus  Christi  Salva  me  Corpus  Christi  conforta  me 

Sanguis  Christi  inebria  me  Sanguis  Christi  redime  me 

Aqua  Latetis  Christi  lava  me  Aqua  Christi  ablue  me 

Passio  Christi  conforta  me  Livor  Christi  sava  me 

O  bono  Jesu  exandi  me  Sudor  Christi  refrigera  me 

Jntra   tua  vulnera  absconde  me,  &c.  Vulnus  Christi  absconde  me 
[Devotions  of  Bishop  Andrewes  (p.  163  Lib.  of  Ang.  Cath.  Theo.)] 

TRANSLATION. 

IGNATIUS.  BISHOP  ANDREWES. 

Soul  of  Chnst  sanctify  me  Soul  of  Christ  sanctify  me 

Body  of  Christ  save  me  Body  of  Christ  strengthen  me 


—63- 

Blood  of  Christ  inebriate  me  Blood  of  Christ  ransom  me 

Water  from  the  side  of  Christ  cleanse  me  Water  (from  the  side  of)  Christ  cleanse  me 

Passion  of  Christ  comfort  me  Bruises  of  Christ  heal  me 

O  good  Jesu  hear  me  Sweat  of  Christ  refresh  me 

Hide  me  within  Thy  wounds  &c-  Wound  of  Christ  hide  me 

The  use  of  the  Anima  Christi  by  Bishop  Andrewes  is  the  more  remarka- 
ble, because  having  been  born  but  a  few  years  after  the  death  of  Ignatius,  he 
must  have  gone  out  of  his  way  to  get  it.  It  is  he  who  introduced  it  into  the 
English  Church.*  It  did  not  come  to  him  as  it  has  to  us  after  long  centuries 
of  use.  Bishop  Andrewes  has  indeed  altered  the  one  word  which  Dr. 
Adams  dwelt  upon,  the  word  "inebriate".  Preferring  myself  the  word 
"  ransom"  it  must  be  remembered  that  there  is  very  high  authority  for  the 
use  of  "  inebriate."  The  language  is  to  be  found  as  being  employed  in  Holy 
Scripture,  in  St.  Cyprian,  St.  Ambrose,  St.  Augustine,  Eusebius,  Origen,  St. 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  St.  Gregory  Nyssen,  St.  Athanasius,  and  Theodoret. 
Should  any  one  wish  to  look  up  the  passages,  the  references  can  all  be  found 
in  Dr.  Pusey's  letter  to  the  Bishop  of  London  p.  145. 

The  word  "inebriate"  in  the  figurative  language  which  the  fathers  used 
simply  means  that  by  the  Blood  of  Christ,  spiritually  given  us  in  the  Holy 
Communion,  we  are  born  out  of  and  above  ourselves.  The  soul  "  was  athirst 
for  God,"  it  "hungered  and  thirsted  after  righteousness,"  it  was  "to  drink  of 
the  river  of  Thy  pleasures."  "And  thus  words  as  "inebriating"  or  those  of 
the  like  meaning  which  sound  strangely  in  our  ears,  who  have  it  is  to  be  feared 
so  little  of  the  joy  of  the  ancient  church,  do  declare  the  highest  mystery  of 
Christian  joy.  For  man  may  be  out  of  himself  either  by  being  above  or  below 
himself;  and  in  their  highest  degree  the  outward  semblance  may  in  either 
case  be  the  same."  (See  Dr.  Pusey's  letter,  p.  154  and  155.) 

It  must  also  be  noted  that  the  verse  of  the  23d  Psalm,  "Thy  cup  shall 
be  full"  is  in  the  Latin  version  of  the  English  Prayer  Book  authorized  in  the 
time  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  1560,  "  calix  meus  INEBRIANS  quam  praclarus  est" 
and  in  the  latest  Latin  version  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  that  of  Messrs. 
Bright  &  Medd  the  same  phrase  following  the  Vulgate  is  used. 

No  one  of  course  is  compelled  to  use  a  Prayer  like  the  "Anima 
Christi."  If  the  word  "inebriate"  does  not  please  him  he  can  surely  alter  it, 
but  to  condemn  a  book  of  Devotions  on  that  account,  much  more  one  who 
happens  to  give  it  away,  seems  to  be  the  height  of  absurdity. 


*  May  it  not  have  been  brought  from  Spain  at  the  time  of  the  visit  of  Prince  Charles 
(1623)  who  was  accompanied  by  Dr.  Wren,  when  Bishop  Andrewes  was  Bishop  of  Winches- 
ter. 


VtA 

-i  -At 
k^£ 
i^t 


-  *U^  Mv*   A 

^ 


W^       M  vv.^vxa  -   lA4>fi      ktAAA*  i~ 
/?  r  -  , 


ERRATA. 

Page  25.     To  the  second  paragraph  of  the  quotation  from 
Thorndike,  the  following  should  be  added: 

"Grant  that  there  may  be  question,  whether  it  be  a  just  occasion  or  not  ; 
certainly  supposing  it  came  to  a  custom  in  the  Church  presently  to  do  that 
which  is  always  due  to  be  done,  you  suppose  the  question  determined.  This 
is  that  which  I  stand  upon  ;  the  matter  being  such  as  it  is,  supposing  the  cus- 
tom of  the  Church  to  have  determined  it,  it  shall  be  so  far  from  an  act  of 
idolatry,  that  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  a  good  Christian.  Therefore,  not  suppos- 
ing the  Church  to  have  determined  it,  though  for  some  occasions,  (whereof 
more  are  possible  than  it  is  possible  for  one  to  imagine)  it  may  become  offen- 
sive and  not  presently  due,  yet  can  it  never  become  an  act  of  idolatry  ;  so 
long  as  Christianity  is  that  which  it  is,  and  he  that  does  it  professes  himself  a 
Christian," 


Page  44.     The  quotation  from  the  Collect   for  St.  Michael 
and  all  Angels  should  read  : 

"Grant  that  as  Thy  Holy  Angels  always  do  Thee  service  in   Heaven,  so 
by  Thy  appointment  they  may  succour  and  defend  us  on  earth." 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


Series  9482 


